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

Since: May 13

Ellijay, GA

#13214 May 24, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that all Amendments to the US Constitution have instituted change to the original document.
I go nowhere without my pocket Constitution.

It stays in my purse and when I change bags, it goes into that bag.

I have a second pocket Constitution next to my bed along with my Bible.

When I'm sitting in a parking lot waiting for the person I'm with to come out of the store, gas station, etc, you can find me reading the booklet.

Growing up, I saw a framed sepia colored Constitution on the wall next to my bedroom in the hall.

So don't try to gotcha me on the Constitution.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#13215 May 24, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
The cut and paste scold emerges once again, those with whom you agree make an excellent point, those with whom you do not should use their own words.
The point of the post that you don't get the point of, is that, your "concern" is always reserved for those who disagree with you.
You object to Christians being characterized as anti-science, or characterized as uncaring, or the thousand other stereotypes that are really meaningless, but exhibit no such "concern" when the same methods of stereotyping are used by those with whom you agree.
Your "concern" always rings hollow because it is contrived to show how "reasonable" you are.
As far as who has defined "True Christian", if you are not familiar with this line of argument in these discussions then you haven't been paying attention, it's really no different than those who claim to be the True Patriot. And just to be perfectly clear, no I'm not pointing the finger at you, except in the sense of your selective concern for stereotypes.
As far as pointing out specific instances, you got to be joking, this topic contains over 600 pages, and this page will bury itself by this evening.
I would prefer anyone posting on here use their own opinions rather than posting the opinions of others in mass quantities. However, occasional quotes to underscore points can be very effective.
But, why should I take up an issue with those I agree with - I have to do "your job" too?- how indicative of the Leftist mindset.
And if you are going to criticize my posts - how about actually paying attention to them - on more than one occasion I have acknowledged my giving most of you the benefit of the doubt in terms of motivations - I just believe you are exceedingly wrong in your perception of the appropriate response to problems as, in general, I believe the solutions the Left believes in either only make the problems worse or create new ones.
But you on the Left continually question not just our positions, but the motivations behind them and call us greedy or selfish or ignorant, RWW, and on and on- refusing to grant us the benefit that we believe our positions are every bit as founded in fact and experience as you apparently believe yours to be.

Your post directed specifically to me:
"And yet we never hear you admonish those who claim exclusive knowledge of just who constitutes the True Christian."
I ask you to give me more information so I can either clarify my position or do exactly what you claim I do not do.
You then claim I have no been paying attention or refer back to 600 pages of post.-
So obviously you had no real instance of someone claiming only those who agreed with x, y and z can call themselves "True Christians" - you just threw a Straw Man out there to try and discredit my response. Typical and childish.
ChicknButt

Norcross, GA

#13216 May 24, 2013
Death Panel wrote:
<quoted text>
Sooooo....no opinions? Just attacks?
Not interested in your hostility.
There was no hostility at all in that post. The opinion was that you're using the wrong criteria to judge the problems and it was non-productive.

Why do you always walk around with a chip on your shoulder?
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#13217 May 24, 2013
Death Panel wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
I go nowhere without my pocket Constitution.
It stays in my purse and when I change bags, it goes into that bag.
I have a second pocket Constitution next to my bed along with my Bible.
When I'm sitting in a parking lot waiting for the person I'm with to come out of the store, gas station, etc, you can find me reading the booklet.
Growing up, I saw a framed sepia colored Constitution on the wall next to my bedroom in the hall.
So don't try to gotcha me on the Constitution.
Wow, all of that is really something, unfortunately it does not inform us as to your knowledge of the purpose of an Amendment, unless this is your round about way of retracting this statement:

Changing the Constitution = bad

Here's a simple question,
does an Amendment change the document it is attached to?

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13218 May 24, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't count that as some kind of "win".
Nobody is engaging because it was such a ridiculous position in the first place that no one feels it's WORTH a response.
You might as well have quoted Hitler as an expert to argue that Jewish people are a problem.
You said something stupid yesterday and you looked stupid. Get over it. Today is a new day. Try to say something that isn't stupid today, you'll get better results.
I'm wondering if anyone else sees the irony in this post.

Can't debate/refute someone's points (because of where the person works or worked), typical of the clueless and uneducated. Same thing he/she has done under several different names, so it's not unexpected.

BTW, his/her Hitler reference really says a lot about his/her (lack of) character.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#13219 May 24, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
I would prefer anyone posting on here use their own opinions rather than posting the opinions of others in mass quantities. However, occasional quotes to underscore points can be very effective.
.....
Your post directed specifically to me:
"And yet we never hear you admonish those who claim exclusive knowledge of just who constitutes the True Christian."
I ask you to give me more information so I can either clarify my position or do exactly what you claim I do not do.
You then claim I have no been paying attention or refer back to 600 pages of post.-
So obviously you had no real instance of someone claiming only those who agreed with x, y and z can call themselves "True Christians" - you just threw a Straw Man out there to try and discredit my response. Typical and childish.
I will continue to post in the manner I feel is most effective, which may include extensive cut and paste of both opinion articles and factual statements.
.....
I will keep this mind, wouldn't want any strawmen to creep into these discussions.
ChicknButt

Norcross, GA

#13220 May 24, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Try to say something that isn't stupid today
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm wondering if anyone else sees the irony in this post.
Can't debate/refute someone's points (because of where the person works or worked), typical of the clueless and uneducated. Same thing he/she has done under several different names, so it's not unexpected.
BTW, his/her Hitler reference really says a lot about his/her (lack of) character.
So much for that.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#13221 May 24, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
I will continue to post in the manner I feel is most effective, which may include extensive cut and paste of both opinion articles and factual statements.
.....
I will keep this mind, wouldn't want any strawmen to creep into these discussions.
That's cool, that just validates my decision to typically blow past your posts.

When you have something that you can legitimately debate on your own, why don't you star your posts so we'll know you might have just posted something you can actually discuss.

Since: May 13

Ellijay, GA

#13222 May 24, 2013
Ok Patriots~
I'm off for a fantastic weekend on ATV's. The weather is, can it BE any more perfect for a Memorial Day Weekend??

Honor our Veterans and enjoy yourselves!

LiberalProgressiveCommies~
Please PLEASE no spitting on flags or Soldiers this weekend? Please.

Buh bye
ChicknButt

Norcross, GA

#13223 May 24, 2013
Non-Partisan Raw Information

Here's an interesting little bit of raw information I ran across today. For anybody interested in how Big Business works these days, or interested in the integrity of our food supply, or interested in not being poisoned. Monsanto related.

http://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2...
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#13224 May 24, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you tell me how a person is supposed to earn a living when they can't get into a union? In other words, you've called everyone who isn't a member of a union, a scab. If a person is a plumber and doesn't have the connections to get into a union, how would you have him suppor this family by doing what he knows how to do and NOT be called a scab?
Anyone and everyone can get "into" a union.

Getting into a union is not the problem, the problem is that bought and paid for legislators have created "Right to Starve" states, where you can have all the benefits created by union negotiations, without that pesky necessity of actually joining the union.

Inevitably, as intended, these laws cause the demise of unions as the freeloaders demoralize and financially devastate the union.

Additionally, labor law enforcement has disintegrated to the point that if you intentionally violate a union members rights, fire him, drive him into poverty, conspire to prevent his employment elsewhere, and otherwise destroy his life, and if, after years of litigation, he prevails at trial, his relief is limited to possibly obtaining the job from which he had been illegally fired.

Good luck with surviving that.

Like the Right Wing always does, in order to stifle the rights of the average working man, they simply remove the incentive attorneys have to pursue enforcement of those rights.

Employers laugh at labor law enforcement.

It always has worked, and always will.
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#13225 May 24, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>Yep! I've been warning IO about the consequences. They are going to be thrown in with the scabs.(We're all scabs according to him. lol Lunatic Liberal.)
Ohhhhh....

Is your little itsy bitsy feelings hurt ?

That's soooooo sad.

Maybe you could stop being part of the takers, and join us producers, who put our country and our fellow Americans first and foremost.

It feels good, and it's good for you.
ChicknButt

Alpharetta, GA

#13226 May 24, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone and everyone can get "into" a union.
Getting into a union is not the problem, the problem is that bought and paid for legislators have created "Right to Starve" states, where you can have all the benefits created by union negotiations, without that pesky necessity of actually joining the union.
Inevitably, as intended, these laws cause the demise of unions as the freeloaders demoralize and financially devastate the union.
Additionally, labor law enforcement has disintegrated to the point that if you intentionally violate a union members rights, fire him, drive him into poverty, conspire to prevent his employment elsewhere, and otherwise destroy his life, and if, after years of litigation, he prevails at trial, his relief is limited to possibly obtaining the job from which he had been illegally fired.
Good luck with surviving that.
Like the Right Wing always does, in order to stifle the rights of the average working man, they simply remove the incentive attorneys have to pursue enforcement of those rights.
Employers laugh at labor law enforcement.
It always has worked, and always will.
Unions are scum and those that support them blow.
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#13227 May 24, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>Theodore Roosevelt was no conservative, he was among the first of the progressives.
Nationalize the oil companies?- Well, you and Maxine Waters have a lot in common - enough said.
Return -??? to progressive taxation - What - the top 1% paying 35% of the taxes and the top 5% paying
almost 60% of the taxes and the top 10% paying almost 70% of the taxes isn't enough for you? Silly
question - it never is enough for you on the Left, is it?
The government already owns nearly 30% of US land - how much do you think it should control?
How about we go all crazy wild liberal and return to the tax rates we had in 1960, a 42% effective corporate tax rate.

That Eisenhower - what a looney tunes liberal socialist commie. I bet he had a "Hammer and Sickle" under his Army uniform.

Today's effective tax rate, if anything is paid, is 17%.

Let's see, under the 1960 corporate tax rates,(42% effective rate), unemployment was 5.5%.

After cutting corporate taxes 21 times to reduce their taxes, under todays 17% effective tax rate, while profits have exploded, the unemployment rate is now 7.5%.

It would seem to rational people that lowering corporate taxes, caused profits to explode, and unemployment to increase.
formerresident

Decatur, GA

#13228 May 24, 2013
Making products overseas, is a major reason for unemployment.
The WB

Warner Robins, GA

#13229 May 24, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
How about we go all crazy wild liberal and return to the tax rates we had in 1960, a 42% effective corporate tax rate.
That Eisenhower - what a looney tunes liberal socialist commie. I bet he had a "Hammer and Sickle" under his Army uniform.
Today's effective tax rate, if anything is paid, is 17%.
Let's see, under the 1960 corporate tax rates,(42% effective rate), unemployment was 5.5%.
After cutting corporate taxes 21 times to reduce their taxes, under todays 17% effective tax rate, while profits have exploded, the unemployment rate is now 7.5%.
It would seem to rational people that lowering corporate taxes, caused profits to explode, and unemployment to increase.
It would seem to irrational morons like you that increasing taxes and removing money from the free market would be helpful
Unfortunately, liars aren't willing to admit that federal tax revenues increase whenever tax rates decrease. It was true when Kennedy lowered the rates and when Reagan lowered the rates and when Bush lowered the rates.
You are either too stupid or too dishonest to admit this. Honesty can be learned but there's no fixing stupid.
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#13230 May 24, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>I couldn't care less if you believe in god or not. If you proclaim that we can't identify truths in the natural universe (otherwise known as science), or, that despite all evidence, something doesn't exist, I'll argue with you on the point.

If you VOTE for people that proclaim their "belief system" outweighs logic and science, I'll oppose you with everything I've got.

Why is "God" political? Because misguided people and politicians seeking to exploit misguided people have made it so. If they would simply "mind their own business" as you claim they do there would be no problem.
Great post.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#13231 May 24, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
How about we go all crazy wild liberal and return to the tax rates we had in 1960, a 42% effective corporate tax rate.
That Eisenhower - what a looney tunes liberal socialist commie. I bet he had a "Hammer and Sickle" under his Army uniform.
Today's effective tax rate, if anything is paid, is 17%.
Let's see, under the 1960 corporate tax rates,(42% effective rate), unemployment was 5.5%.
After cutting corporate taxes 21 times to reduce their taxes, under todays 17% effective tax rate, while profits have exploded, the unemployment rate is now 7.5%.
It would seem to rational people that lowering corporate taxes, caused profits to explode, and unemployment to increase.
That's cute how you somehow forgot to mention the 1960's. Oh, but that's right you were talking about Eisenhower. You mean the same Eisenhower who had an anemic 2.4% economic growth rate during his tenure in office, though that actually was a little better than the growth rate for the period of 1944-1960 when growth averaged 2.1%. Then along comes Kennedy who, presuming his positions were sincere and not political posturing, would never be a Democrat today and who realized that cuts for both business and personal taxes were the way to get the economy moving. And what happened as a result of those tax cuts, from 1961-1969, well the economy grew by 48%, unemployment dropped from 6% to 3.8% and twice as many jobs were created as in the 50's. Oh, and has usually been the case with tax cuts, the federal government saw tax revenues increase by 55% from '61-'68. If only we hadn't had Johnson in office to spend all that revenue in a failed War on Poverty and a war in Vietnam that he had to micromanage ("they can't bomb an outhouse without my OK.) thus preventing the military from actually winning the war.
Yeah, given your Leftist leanings, I guess I'd try to ignore the 60's too. Oh, and how are we doing under Obama - well, depending on your source - the growth rate ranges from ,8% to 1.5% to 2.3%- super.
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#13232 May 24, 2013
Death Panel wrote:
<quoted text>Change can be good.
Changing your diaper = good.
Allowing people of all races to ride a bus together = good
Going to AA if you're an alcoholic = good in most eyes
Medical science = almost always good if it helps
Geological science to help find oil underground thereby making us a non Islam dependent country = good (Science can be VERY good)

Changing the Constitution = bad
Changing America to a --
Communist state
Dictatorship
Marxist state
Secular state
Welfare state
One Rule Tyrant state
White people are evil state
A country that lets the IRS run our healthcare, not to mention the thuggery and terrorist activities of late
= bad

Our grandparents in their graves would be ashamed of us.

Your thoughts?
Yes.

They'd be ashamed of many of us.

They'd be ashamed of how Right Wingers have chosen ignorance over knowledge, division over unity, and sycophantic worship of their feudal kings over brotherhood.

But they'd be damn proud of good union men and women who work for the betterment of their fellow Americans and their country.

“WB got Busted 98593”

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#13233 May 24, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Unions are scum and those that support them blow.
Yesterday name-jacked by THE WB, today - name-jacked by somebody with an Alpharetta ISP. I'm betting on Bored Monitor this time.

The little RWW children are getting hard to control now that the school-year is almost finished. I'll bet they settle down when their report cards come in and they realize everything they think they learned is wrong.

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.

Citizen Sound-Off Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Missouri ... (Oct '10) 27 min Impeach Trump Now 109,052
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 46 min Just call me Abe 3 259,035
Election Who are you voting for in the California Govern... (Oct '14) 5 hr Well Well 15
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in West Virg... (Oct '10) 7 hr Weepy 99,229
Election OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Questio... (Oct '10) Fri WarForOil 83,937
Election Who's got your vote for Congress in Kentucky's ... (Oct '14) Thu Mel 63
Election Who do you support for Governor in Texas in 2010? (Oct '10) Feb 21 Myra 20,066
More from around the web