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

[Bill in Dville]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
If tax breaks increase revenue, since we've cut taxes over 26 times since Reagan became president we should be floating along with a budget surplus and no debt at all.
Just another silly "Supply Side" argument made by rich people to avoid supporting their country.
Hey, I know, I really love my country so I won't pay any taxes - that ought to create a huge increase in tax revenue,
wait... let's stop taxing anyone for anything - those government coffers will overflow with tax revenues when nobody pays any taxes at all.
Yea - right.
The only sillier statement is that all taxes are passed along to the consumer, when any business person knows we charge the maximum for our services and products, regardless of our costs, be those costs taxes or materials.
What's amazing is how these obviously ridiculous assertions : that lowering taxes raises revenue, and that taxes are always passed along to consumers, still are used by those parasites who enjoy our country's benefits while whining when asked to pay taxes like everyone else.
It's the definition of unregulated capitalism ad greed - privatize your profit, externalize and socialize your costs, and pretend you're not not.

@ Aggie: above is a good example of why not to waste your time. Some people think they understand things, but don't. It's not worth the time and effort to educate them, they think they know it already...

Kinda like the fans being critical of football coaches calling the "wrong" plays, yet they don't know how to play the game...

[Aggie23]

@Bill in Dville and General Robert E Lee

How right y'all are.

[jeb stuart]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
If tax breaks increase revenue, since we've cut taxes over 26 times since Reagan became president we should be floating along with a budget surplus and no debt at all.
Just another silly "Supply Side" argument made by rich people to avoid supporting their country.
Hey, I know, I really love my country so I won't pay any taxes - that ought to create a huge increase in tax revenue,
wait... let's stop taxing anyone for anything - those government coffers will overflow with tax revenues when nobody pays any taxes at all.
Yea - right.
The only sillier statement is that all taxes are passed along to the consumer, when any business person knows we charge the maximum for our services and products, regardless of our costs, be those costs taxes or materials.
What's amazing is how these obviously ridiculous assertions : that lowering taxes raises revenue, and that taxes are always passed along to consumers, still are used by those parasites who enjoy our country's benefits while whining when asked to pay taxes like everyone else.
It's the definition of unregulated capitalism ad greed - privatize your profit, externalize and socialize your costs, and pretend you're not not.

hey,i think they call that the'trickle down effect'.

[jeb stuart]

or in other words,we'll take ours now,maybe the rest will get a little something later-like you said-unadulerated and unashamed greed,plain and simple!

[Bored]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
But, by God:
Bob couldn't marry Dave,
Bush never is known to have received oral sex,(although Congress failed to i investigate that important question when it came to Bush), and
we could still buy magazines for our rifles that hold over 30 rounds for hunters with really bad aim.

Boring.

[jeb stuart]

Bored wrote:

<quoted text>
Boring.

if all this stuff is so boring to you,why don't you post us all something really profound and exciting?

[Informed Opinion]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>@ Aggie: above is a good example of why not to waste your time. Some people think they understand things, but don't. It's not worth the time and effort to educate them, they think they know it already...

Kinda like the fans being critical of football coaches calling the "wrong" plays, yet they don't know how to play the game...

It's always entertaining, and predictable, to observe that whenever confronted by facts and analysis that clearly disprove the Right Wing's "talking points", rather than attempt to defend the indefensible, the response is to attack the messenger.

What's equally amusing is those who watch the bikini models and paid "consultants" on Fox Noise actually think they know more about what's going on, than those who watch CSPAN, NPR, and listen to the BBC.

Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University updated a study they had conducted in late 2011.
The poll asked questions about international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and domestic affairs (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline.)
The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don't watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy right.
As the study explained, though, people who watched only Fox News fared worse:
The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all.

On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" (a comedy show), could answer about 1.42 questions.

[Informed Opinion]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>hey,i think they call that the'trickle down effect'.

Absolutely right.

One family,(The Walton Family) all by itself owns more than 80 million Americans combined.

Thankfully, they are happy to trickle down on us whenever their bladders must be emptied. We should be thankful.

[chevy]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
It's always entertaining, and predictable, to observe that whenever confronted by facts and analysis that clearly disprove the Right Wing's "talking points", rather than attempt to defend the indefensible, the response is to attack the messenger.
What's equally amusing is those who watch the bikini models and paid "consultants" on Fox Noise actually think they know more about what's going on, than those who watch CSPAN, NPR, and listen to the BBC.
Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University updated a study they had conducted in late 2011.
The poll asked questions about international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and domestic affairs (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline.)
The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don't watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy right.
As the study explained, though, people who watched only Fox News fared worse:
The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all.
On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" (a comedy show), could answer about 1.42 questions.

people who read your posts could not answer any questions about anything because they were in a stupor and unable to speak

[animal house]

chevy wrote:

<quoted text>
people who read your posts could not answer any questions about anything because they were in a stupor and unable to speak

fat,ugly and stupid is no way to go through life,young man.

[Debate]

chevy wrote:

<quoted text>
people who read your posts could not answer any questions about anything because they were in a stupor and unable to speak

Written like a true Republican.

[Synergy]

What I don't get is why all the hate from the liberals? Your guy won. Everything is going to be sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Right? The rich are going to pay their fair share(Whatever THAT is. No one seems to know.) The middle class and poor will be "moving on up" financially and all will be right with the world. Why all the hate, liberals? You are getting exactly what you wanted. What's up?

[jeb stuart]

Synergy wrote:

What I don't get is why all the hate from the liberals? Your guy won. Everything is going to be sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Right? The rich are going to pay their fair share(Whatever THAT is. No one seems to know.) The middle class and poor will be "moving on up" financially and all will be right with the world. Why all the hate, liberals? You are getting exactly what you wanted. What's up?

What hate?I love republicans,as soon as I can afford it,I plan to buy two three of them.

[Zip Code]

As soon as the Republican controlled House wants to reduce spending, they can and there isn't a thing the President can do about it cause they have the purse strings.

[Joe]

Those republicans in Washington are Cowards.

[Zip Code]

It would be nice if members of Congress dressed like NASCAR drivers, so we could tell who their corporate sponsors are.

[Informed Opinion]

Synergy wrote:

What I don't get is why all the hate from the liberals? Your guy won. Everything is going to be sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Right? The rich are going to pay their fair share(Whatever THAT is. No one seems to know.) The middle class and poor will be "moving on up" financially and all will be right with the world. Why all the hate, liberals? You are getting exactly what you wanted. What's up?

Nobody is moving on up as long as Republicans, thanks to Gerrrymanding, cannot possibly lose re-election.

Spencer Black: How Republicans stole control of the House

JANUARY 09, 2013 4:15 AM • SPENCER BLACK | LOCAL COLUMNIST
Strange but true: A recent national poll found that 49 percent of GOP voters believe that President Obama stole his re-election and that ACORN, an anti-poverty group that registered low-income voters, was responsible.

The problem with that view (in addition to the fact that Romney only received 47 percent of the vote) is that ACORN doesn’t exist anymore, having been dissolved in 2010.

The election was stolen if a stolen election means that the party receiving the most votes didn’t win. Only it wasn’t the presidential election that was stolen — it was the election for control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Wisconsin Legislature.
At the national level, the final election tally shows that Democrats received 1,362,000 more votes than Republicans in races for the U.S. House, yet John Boehner is the speaker, not the Democrats’ Nancy Pelosi. In Wisconsin, Democrats received 192,000 more votes for the Assembly than did Republicans, yet Republicans control more than 60 percent of that chamber.
How did this electoral larceny happen? States controlled by Republicans, including North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia and Wisconsin, engaged in such extreme partisan gerrymandering that the will of the people in the recent elections was subverted.
Here are some examples: In Ohio, President Obama received 51 percent of the vote but only 25 percent of the congressional seats went to Democrats. Tallies in other states: Michigan, Obama 54 percent, Democrats 36 percent; Virginia, Obama 51 percent, Democrats 27 percent; Pennsylvania, Obama 52 percent, Democrats 27 percent.
In states where Republicans controlled redistricting, GOP gerrymandering allowed them to gain 39 more House seats than they would have based on the presidential vote. Since a change in only 18 seats would make the difference between Democratic and Republican control of the House, the GOP and Boehner owe their power not to the votes of the electorate, but to an election stolen by partisan maneuvering.
Likewise, in Wisconsin, Republicans used gerrymandering to seize control of the Legislature. According to Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Republican gerrymandering means that 60 of the 99 Assembly districts are more Republican than the state as a whole, based on the presidential vote. Guess what: The Republicans have 59 Assmbly seats (one seat is vacant, but a Republican is expected to win it), despite getting fewer votes statewide for their Assembly candidates.
Where Democrats controlled redistricting, they restrained themselves from the extreme gerrymandering of the Republicans. For example, in Illinois, Obama won 58 percent of the vote and Democrats won 66 percent of the House seats. Interestingly, in Iowa, which has nonpartisan redistricting, the presidential vote and the congressional vote were almost the same: Obama 52 percent and congressional seats 50 percent Democratic.

[jeb stuart]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Nobody is moving on up as long as Republicans, thanks to Gerrrymanding, cannot possibly lose re-election.
Spencer Black: How Republicans stole control of the House
JANUARY 09, 2013 4:15 AM • SPENCER BLACK | LOCAL COLUMNIST
Strange but true: A recent national poll found that 49 percent of GOP voters believe that President Obama stole his re-election and that ACORN, an anti-poverty group that registered low-income voters, was responsible.
The problem with that view (in addition to the fact that Romney only received 47 percent of the vote) is that ACORN doesn’t exist anymore, having been dissolved in 2010.
The election was stolen if a stolen election means that the party receiving the most votes didn’t win. Only it wasn’t the presidential election that was stolen — it was the election for control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Wisconsin Legislature.
At the national level, the final election tally shows that Democrats received 1,362,000 more votes than Republicans in races for the U.S. House, yet John Boehner is the speaker, not the Democrats’ Nancy Pelosi. In Wisconsin, Democrats received 192,000 more votes for the Assembly than did Republicans, yet Republicans control more than 60 percent of that chamber.
How did this electoral larceny happen? States controlled by Republicans, including North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia and Wisconsin, engaged in such extreme partisan gerrymandering that the will of the people in the recent elections was subverted.
Here are some examples: In Ohio, President Obama received 51 percent of the vote but only 25 percent of the congressional seats went to Democrats. Tallies in other states: Michigan, Obama 54 percent, Democrats 36 percent; Virginia, Obama 51 percent, Democrats 27 percent; Pennsylvania, Obama 52 percent, Democrats 27 percent.
In states where Republicans controlled redistricting, GOP gerrymandering allowed them to gain 39 more House seats than they would have based on the presidential vote. Since a change in only 18 seats would make the difference between Democratic and Republican control of the House, the GOP and Boehner owe their power not to the votes of the electorate, but to an election stolen by partisan maneuvering.
Likewise, in Wisconsin, Republicans used gerrymandering to seize control of the Legislature. According to Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Republican gerrymandering means that 60 of the 99 Assembly districts are more Republican than the state as a whole, based on the presidential vote. Guess what: The Republicans have 59 Assmbly seats (one seat is vacant, but a Republican is expected to win it), despite getting fewer votes statewide for their Assembly candidates.
Where Democrats controlled redistricting, they restrained themselves from the extreme gerrymandering of the Republicans. For example, in Illinois, Obama won 58 percent of the vote and Democrats won 66 percent of the House seats. Interestingly, in Iowa, which has nonpartisan redistricting, the presidential vote and the congressional vote were almost the same: Obama 52 percent and congressional seats 50 percent Democratic.

you just watch,they're stealing,dealing days are coming to an end.this"hittler youth" mentality is passe,it just does not'add up' to the younger voters.

[out of touch]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>you just watch,they're stealing,dealing days are coming to an end.this"hittler youth" mentality is passe,it just does not'add up' to the younger voters.

You and the rest of the conserative arm of the repug party are totaly out of touch with reality. Young folks are sick of consertives pushing for budget cuts that primiraly affect the young. They are sick of hearing how you want them to continue to pay your social security while theirs is cut to the bone. They are sick of programs to protect the baby boomer generation at the expense of thier generation. Can't blame them, this whole economic mess is the result of baby boomers overspending, overbarowing and over expecting. When reality struck in the form of g.b. and the house of cards fell they only looked to the young to sacrifice. Younger voters are much smarter than you think.

[Called Out]

out of touch wrote:

<quoted text>
You and the rest of the conserative arm of the repug party are totaly out of touch with reality. Young folks are sick of consertives pushing for budget cuts that primiraly affect the young. They are sick of hearing how you want them to continue to pay your social security while theirs is cut to the bone. They are sick of programs to protect the baby boomer generation at the expense of thier generation. Can't blame them, this whole economic mess is the result of baby boomers overspending, overbarowing and over expecting. When reality struck in the form of g.b. and the house of cards fell they only looked to the young to sacrifice. Younger voters are much smarter than you think.

Yeah, right, that's why they voted for a guy who will stick them with $10 trillion in debt before he's through.