Billy

Dahlonega, GA

#16735 Jun 28, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
Just when I think his narcissism CAN'T get any worse, he says something like that. That clown is hopeless.
Among the long list of points you are missing, is the gay marriage issue. NOBODY is telling you what you can believe or can't believe when it comes to marriage. What they are doing is simply acknowledging the legal side of marriage, giving them the rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution. Not the religious side and their is a difference. Agnostics get married all the time and its a legal union, not a religious one. So go beat some other dead horse for the rest of the week.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#16736 Jun 28, 2013
Billy wrote:
<quoted text>
Among the long list of points you are missing, is the gay marriage issue. NOBODY is telling you what you can believe or can't believe when it comes to marriage. What they are doing is simply acknowledging the legal side of marriage, giving them the rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution. Not the religious side and their is a difference. Agnostics get married all the time and its a legal union, not a religious one. So go beat some other dead horse for the rest of the week.
Okay. I'm going to type this a little slower, so that you'll POSSIBLY understand. I don't care if someone wants to marry a tree. Leave animals and kids out of it. Other than that, rock on, Dude. Whom someone marries doesn't affect my life one way or the other.
one thing

Dahlonega, GA

#16737 Jun 28, 2013
On thing this post is proving is that most people in these parts are sane. All the insane ramblings are coming from just a few. People who have nothing better to do than to search the internet all day and night for things that back up their clueless hate filled beliefs. This is the obvious reason for the decline of the Republican Party. These people here are crazy as hell.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#16738 Jun 28, 2013
Just MORE(if one even needs more) proof how out of touch our so called president is. The dictator, Obama, is making quite the name for himself.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/europe-exits-cl...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#16739 Jun 28, 2013
Billy wrote:
<quoted text>
Among the long list of points you are missing, is the gay marriage issue. NOBODY is telling you what you can believe or can't believe when it comes to marriage. What they are doing is simply acknowledging the legal side of marriage, giving them the rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution. Not the religious side and their is a difference. Agnostics get married all the time and its a legal union, not a religious one. So go beat some other dead horse for the rest of the week.
No, what they are attempting to do is redefine the word "marriage" - that has enormous repercussions. Had the argument been made to grant civil unions between homosexuals the same rights and obligations as marriage, that would have been a reasonable debate and one that I suspect many who oppose the idea of so called gay marriage would not have had a problem with. But marriage is an institution that is very important to a stable society and to arbitrarily decide it can be fundamentally redefined is something that should not be done hastily - especially when other alternatives were available that would have accomplished the same end. Once it is established that the concept of marriage is fluid, it opens the door for many other relationships to stand up and say "now it's our turn".

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#16740 Jun 28, 2013
Billy wrote:
<quoted text>
Among the long list of points you are missing, is the gay marriage issue. NOBODY is telling you what you can believe or can't believe when it comes to marriage. What they are doing is simply acknowledging the legal side of marriage, giving them the rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution. Not the religious side and their is a difference. Agnostics get married all the time and its a legal union, not a religious one. So go beat some other dead horse for the rest of the week.
BTW, YOU missed the point of that post. Of course, add that to the Looooooog list of points you seem to miss rather regularly. My point was that Obama stated that he wasn't going to MAKE churches(or something to that effect) marry gay couples(AS IF). Well, thank you very much, Mr. Narcissistic Egomaniac.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#16741 Jun 28, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree. He specializes in left wing rhetoric as long as it's on a teleprompter. He is an horrendous speaker without that help.
The left wing media is losing any cred it might have had by its constant defense of Obama. Actually, I don't hear nearly as much media Obama-loving as I did during his first term.
As I have said before. He is a good at reading speeches.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#16742 Jun 28, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
My goodness, you are getting desperate. Spin and selective quotation editing to try and create a false impression.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/docume...
Uhmmm, "selective quotation editing", how is that possible when the original source is referenced with a link.

From J Russell George's response (from the referenced link), looks like they went back and did some additional research, and what did they find, they found that it wasn't just conevative groups that "were processed as potential political cases".

"Based on the information you flagged regarding the existence of a "Progressives" entry on BOLO lists, TIGTA performed additional research which determined that six tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 having the words "progress" or "progressive" in their names were included in the 298 cases the IRS identified as potential political cases. We also determined that 14 tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 using the words "progress" or "progressive" in their names were not referred for added scrutiny as potential political cases. In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words "progress" or "progressive" in their names were processed as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit."

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#16743 Jun 28, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what they are attempting to do is redefine the word "marriage" - that has enormous repercussions. Had the argument been made to grant civil unions between homosexuals the same rights and obligations as marriage, that would have been a reasonable debate and one that I suspect many who oppose the idea of so called gay marriage would not have had a problem with. But marriage is an institution that is very important to a stable society and to arbitrarily decide it can be fundamentally redefined is something that should not be done hastily - especially when other alternatives were available that would have accomplished the same end. Once it is established that the concept of marriage is fluid, it opens the door for many other relationships to stand up and say "now it's our turn".
You have again hit the nail on the head.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#16744 Jun 28, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, YOU missed the point of that post. Of course, add that to the Looooooog list of points you seem to miss rather regularly. My point was that Obama stated that he wasn't going to MAKE churches(or something to that effect) marry gay couples(AS IF). Well, thank you very much, Mr. Narcissistic Egomaniac.
Maybe he is leaving that task to Mayor Bloomberg. Another want to be emperor.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#16745 Jun 28, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
No, what they are attempting to do is redefine the word "marriage" - that has enormous repercussions. Had the argument been made to grant civil unions between homosexuals the same rights and obligations as marriage, that would have been a reasonable debate and one that I suspect many who oppose the idea of so called gay marriage would not have had a problem with. But marriage is an institution that is very important to a stable society and to arbitrarily decide it can be fundamentally redefined is something that should not be done hastily - especially when other alternatives were available that would have accomplished the same end. Once it is established that the concept of marriage is fluid, it opens the door for many other relationships to stand up and say "now it's our turn".
Except that civil unions, like marriage, is defined by each state, and while marriages are recognized across state lines civil unions are not. What it comes down to is that while your religion can define what a religious marriage is for the followers of your religion, it cannot dictate the meaning of what a civil marriage is for everyone else. Something we've already seen in those states that have sanctioned civil same-sex marriage.

I suspect that even states that do not sanction civil same-sex marriage will be forced to recognize these out of state marriages under equal protection. Besides, it looks more and more that homosexuality falls under a condition of Nature.
Informed Opinion

United States

#16746 Jun 28, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>lol Says the Obamabot from the Planet Libroid.
Amazing - a post that is completely wrong factually, but additionally plagiarizes the insults used in the factually inaccurate post.

Now that's entertaining and informative - but not in the manner intended by the author.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#16747 Jun 28, 2013
If Zimmerman is acquitted will there be race riots? Sounds pretty stupid to me. If there are riots then the Black community is saying that protection given to citizens by the law only pertains to them.
I would also like to know why Blacks will blame the courts, Hispanics, and Whites if Zimmerman is acquitted. Also why do Black people somehow think hurting white people has something to do with Zimmerman? They are innocent and had absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. Zimmerman is a Hispanic and is not white. They shouldn't blame Hispanics either as they had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case either.
If Black people riot in the streets over this, they are setting themselves up for ridicule, hate, and non-acceptance from the rest of America. They will find themselves more isolated then before. If they riot they will not be helping to give themselves the respect and dignity that they want from the rest of America and the world.

http://www.infowars.com/ex-chicago-cop-zimmer...
When

Commerce, GA

#16748 Jun 28, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Couldn't agree with you more. So how about going to the source of the information rather than searching for those authors who slant the facts to give you the perception you prefer. To help you with that I will again include the link to the IRS IG's letter.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/docume...

you're dealing with Obstinate and uninformed Lockstep. I've told you this before. Good luck and happy wasted posts.
They never post a link with clarity, only the ones that obfuscate.


When

Commerce, GA

#16749 Jun 28, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that civil unions, like marriage, is defined by each state, and while marriages are recognized across state lines civil unions are not. What it comes down to is that while your religion can define what a religious marriage is for the followers of your religion, it cannot dictate the meaning of what a civil marriage is for everyone else. Something we've already seen in those states that have sanctioned civil same-sex marriage.
I suspect that even states that do not sanction civil same-sex marriage will be forced to recognize these out of state marriages under equal protection. Besides, it looks more and more that homosexuality falls under a condition of Nature.

Nature my azz.

The Polygamists probably are more excited than the gays.

They say it's now their turn to become legal. They see the court ruling as opening the door for them.

"The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore, one polygamist cheers."

That polygamist may be talking about poor unmarried women living off welfare who have between 6-12 kids by different race fathers.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/polygami...




Next will be adult + child. The cards predict it.
OMTE

Ford City, PA

#16750 Jun 28, 2013
When wrote:
<quoted text>
Nature my azz.
The Polygamists probably are more excited than the gays.
They say it's now their turn to become legal. They see the court ruling as opening the door for them.
"The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore, one polygamist cheers."
That polygamist may be talking about poor unmarried women living off welfare who have between 6-12 kids by different race fathers.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/polygami...
Next will be adult + child. The cards predict it.
Dang. You're smarter than what I initially gave you credit for. I'm sorry I called you a d*ckhead. You were just pickin on my little budy Jeb.
enough said

Dahlonega, GA

#16751 Jun 28, 2013
Synergy wrote:
Just MORE(if one even needs more) proof how out of touch our so called president is. The dictator, Obama, is making quite the name for himself.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/europe-exits-cl...
You are one ignorant nut, who needs to get a real life, enough said.
Informed Opinion

Cape Coral, FL

#16752 Jun 28, 2013
When wrote:
<quoted text>Nature my azz.

The Polygamists probably are more excited than the gays.

They say it's now their turn to become legal. They see the court ruling as opening the door for them.

"The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” one polygamist cheers."

That polygamist may be talking about poor unmarried women living off welfare who have between 6-12 kids by different race fathers.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/polygami...




Next will be adult + child. The cards predict it.
Now, now, settle down.

Right Wing Wackos can still cheat on their wives, engage in wife-swapping, service strangers in public bathrooms, and then lecture the rest of us on the "sanctity" of marriage.

Gay marriage doesn't prevent RWWs from pretending they are morally superior to the rest of us.

It ought to be even more fun.

Right Wing Wacko Larry Craig can make an "honest man" out of of of his bathroom lovers by marrying him - and then as a typical RWW - lecture us all about the sanctity of marriage, while cheating on his spouse by servicing men in bathroom stalls.

Wait ... sorry ... I guess he already does that.

Right Wing Wackos can still look to Gingrich,(unless his current wife gets cancer); Sanford (unless he discovers another Latin temptress); Schwarzenegger,(unless his new housekeeper is hot); Reagan,( he's too dead to cheat on his wife again); Limbaugh,( he's just too tired to keep cheating, even with Viagra and Oxycotin); Giuliani,( he's not important enough anymore to get laid); McCartney,( that "Promise Keepers thing kinda blew-up); to help us mere mortals understand how seriously RWWs take the "Sanctity of Marriage".
OMTE

Ford City, PA

#16753 Jun 28, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, now, settle down.
Right Wing Wackos can still cheat on their wives, engage in wife-swapping, service strangers in public bathrooms, and then lecture the rest of us on the "sanctity" of marriage.
Gay marriage doesn't prevent RWWs from pretending they are morally superior to the rest of us.
It ought to be even more fun.
Right Wing Wacko Larry Craig can make an "honest man" out of of of his bathroom lovers by marrying him - and then as a typical RWW - lecture us all about the sanctity of marriage, while cheating on his spouse by servicing men in bathroom stalls.
Wait ... sorry ... I guess he already does that.
Right Wing Wackos can still look to Gingrich,(unless his current wife gets cancer); Sanford (unless he discovers another Latin temptress); Schwarzenegger,(unless his new housekeeper is hot); Reagan,( he's too dead to cheat on his wife again); Limbaugh,( he's just too tired to keep cheating, even with Viagra and Oxycotin); Giuliani,( he's not important enough anymore to get laid); McCartney,( that "Promise Keepers thing kinda blew-up); to help us mere mortals understand how seriously RWWs take the "Sanctity of Marriage".
You're a fa$$ot. Ain't ya?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#16754 Jun 28, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
....
From J Russell George's response (from the referenced link), looks like they went back and did some additional research, and what did they find, they found that it wasn't just conevative groups that "were processed as potential political cases".
"Based on the information you flagged regarding the existence of a "Progressives" entry on BOLO lists, TIGTA performed additional research which determined that six tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 having the words "progress" or "progressive" in their names were included in the 298 cases the IRS identified as potential political cases. We also determined that 14 tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 using the words "progress" or "progressive" in their names were not referred for added scrutiny as potential political cases. In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words "progress" or "progressive" in their names were processed as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit."
And to put your quoted section in proper context, here is the preceding paragraph followed by the paragraph after your quoted section.

"The "Progressives" criteria appeared on a section of the "Be On the Look Out" (BOLO) spreadsheet labeled "Historical," and, unlike other BOLO entries, did not include instructions on how to refer cases that met the criteria. While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of Tea Party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails, and other documents, WE FOUND NO INDICATION IN ANY OF THESE OTHER MATERIALS THAT "PROGRESSIVES" WAS A TERM USED TO REFER CASES FOR SCRUTINY FOR POLITIICAL CAMPAIGN INTERVENTION."

"Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the "Progressives" identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012. The focus of our audit was on whether the IRS: 1) targeted specific groups applying for tax-exempt status, 2) delayed processing of targeted groups' applications, and 3) requested unnecessary information from targeted groups. WE DETERMINED THE IRS DEVELOPED AND USED INAPPROPRIATE CRITERIA TO IDENTIFY APPLICATIONS FROM ORGANIZATIONS WITH THE WORDS TEA PARTY in their names.
In addition, we found other inappropriate criteria that were used (e.g., 9/12, Patriots) to select potential political cases that were not included in any BOLO listings. THE INAPPROPRIATE CRITERIA USED TO SELECT POTENTIAL POLITICAL CASES FOR REVIEW DID NOT INCLUDE THE TERM "PROGRESSIVES."
The term "Progressives" appears, beginning in August 2010, in a separate section of the BOLO listings that was labeled "TAG [Touch and Go] Historical" or "Potential Abusive Historical." The Touch and Go group within the Exempt Organizations function Determinations Unit is a different group of specialists than the team of specialists that was processing potential political cases related to the allegations we audited."
"TIGTA did not audit how the criteria for the "Progressives" identifier were developed in the BOLO listings. We did not audit these criteria because it appeared in a separate section of the BOLO listings labeled as "Historical" (as described above) and WE DID NOT HAVE INDICATIONS OR OTHER EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS IN USE FOR SELECTING POTENTIAL POLITICAL CASES from May 2010 to May 2012."

=======
You are making yourself look exceedingly foolish by continuing to argue a case for which there is no evidence in order to continually deny that conservative groups were intentionally targeted and harassed by the IRS. IRS officials THEMSELVES have both admitted and apologized for this same targeting - you do yourself no favors by ignoring the facts.

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.

Blairsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Interesting article-link What divides America 45 min IDTD 14
Remove EMC BOARD and Akins 7 hr Revolting 161
Time To Clean Up Union County 12 hr redimix 123
INVESTIGATION: Union County vs. City of Blairsv... 13 hr redimix 63
the local people of blairsville 14 hr redimix 27
Seafood 19 hr uct 59
UCBI on Forbes List of Successful Banks Tue My Question 3

Blairsville News Video

Blairsville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Blairsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:31 pm PST

NBC Sports 3:31PM
Report: Sal Sunseri to leave Florida State for position with Oakland Raiders
Bleacher Report 3:54 PM
2015 Falcons Draft Pick Profile: WR Phillip Dorsett
Bleacher Report 8:55 PM
Falcons Potential Draft Pick: LB Denzel Perryman
ESPN 8:07 AM
Spygate, 'culture of cheating' vexes ex-GM
Yahoo! Sports10:47 AM
Former Panthers GM wonders if Patriots cheated in their Super Bowl