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

Clarkesville, GA

#23304 Aug 25, 2013
The longer the posts, the less I read the garbage.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#23306 Aug 25, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post.
Please consider the response as a serious.
"I don't support guys running around naked in the girls locker rooms."
Who does ? Really ?
Even you can't seriously accuse anyone who posts here of supporting that.
I don't support the Democratic Party and what it stands for.
That's fine - there's lots to
disagree with both Repubs and Demos.
"I see this left wing Democratic controlled administration lying to us and promoting wire taps and data collection by the NSA."
Wait.. Right Wing Republicans Bush and Cheney initiated all this- Right Wing Obama is simply continuing the policies.
So why no outrage when Right Wing Bush started all this insanity, but outrage at Obama - they are clones.
"I see them trying to start new conflicts in the world where we have no business or interest."
Wait... Right Wing Bush started one war killing 5,000 American troops and costing $6,000,000,000,000.00, and invaded and occupied two others. Obama has started no wars, is bringing home troops and otherwise continuing Bush's policies.
So why no outrage when Right Wing Bush started all this insanity, but outrage at Obama - they are clones.
" I see them in charge of the drones, military operations, spying, and almost everything that you mentioned in your complaints, not Right Wingers."
Every one of these is a program initiated by Right Wing Bush and continued by Obama - so why is Bush "Right" and Obama "Left" ?
"However I am for protection of children from sexual predators and women from rape and abuse."
"That's like saying you like Mom amd apple pie. Who is in favor of sexual predators ?- and please - don't say "Liberals" - even you can't believe that.
Frankly most everything that you mentioned your dislike for is being controlled by a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic Administration.
I consider them Left Wingers. Am I wrong?
Extraordinarily wrong.
There is simply not a single major policy on which Obama differs from Bush, and that's because they are both Right Wingers.
Since they are clones on all major policies - why is one "Right" and one "Left" ?
Did I ever insinuate that there was a major difference in their major policies?
Obama has just carried everything to a super new level. He just increased the intensity of Big government and government control over the people, business's, healthcare system, immigration, and a huge increase in America's financial debt.
Answer this question.
Is Fascism, Socialism, or Communism considered by you to be left wing?
What is right wing and what do you consider to be left wing?

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#23307 Aug 25, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post.
Please consider the response as a serious.
"I don't support guys running around naked in the girls locker rooms."
Who does ? Really ?
Even you can't seriously accuse anyone who posts here of supporting that.
I don't support the Democratic Party and what it stands for.
That's fine - there's lots to
disagree with both Repubs and Demos.
"I see this left wing Democratic controlled administration lying to us and promoting wire taps and data collection by the NSA."
Wait.. Right Wing Republicans Bush and Cheney initiated all this- Right Wing Obama is simply continuing the policies.
So why no outrage when Right Wing Bush started all this insanity, but outrage at Obama - they are clones.
"I see them trying to start new conflicts in the world where we have no business or interest."
Wait... Right Wing Bush started one war killing 5,000 American troops and costing $6,000,000,000,000.00, and invaded and occupied two others. Obama has started no wars, is bringing home troops and otherwise continuing Bush's policies.
So why no outrage when Right Wing Bush started all this insanity, but outrage at Obama - they are clones.
" I see them in charge of the drones, military operations, spying, and almost everything that you mentioned in your complaints, not Right Wingers."
Every one of these is a program initiated by Right Wing Bush and continued by Obama - so why is Bush "Right" and Obama "Left" ?
"However I am for protection of children from sexual predators and women from rape and abuse."
"That's like saying you like Mom amd apple pie. Who is in favor of sexual predators ?- and please - don't say "Liberals" - even you can't believe that.
Frankly most everything that you mentioned your dislike for is being controlled by a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic Administration.
I consider them Left Wingers. Am I wrong?
Extraordinarily wrong.
There is simply not a single major policy on which Obama differs from Bush, and that's because they are both Right Wingers.
Since they are clones on all major policies - why is one "Right" and one "Left" ?
Lets be honest and face the truth. Many Republicans , Independents, and others, were fooled and were sorry that they voted for Bush the second time. If they had known how he was to govern he might not have been reelected. Not that they would have voted for the Democratic Candidate John Kerry. They just simply would have not voted. Not all Republicans thought that he was great. Hindsight is 20/20.
Get over it. That was in the past and that can't be undone. We live in today and must look towards the future and hopefully learn from the past. Some things can't ever be undone.
Informed Opinion

Cape Coral, FL

#23308 Aug 25, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>Lets be honest and face the truth. Many Republicans , Independents, and others, were fooled and were sorry that they voted for Bush the second time. If they had known how he was to govern he might not have been reelected. Not that they would have voted for the Democratic Candidate John Kerry. They just simply would have not voted. Not all Republicans thought that he was great. Hindsight is 20/20.
Get over it. That was in the past and that can't be undone. We live in today and must look towards the future and hopefully learn from the past. Some things can't ever be undone.
Great post. Lots of truth there.

I just wish we had a real choice in politicians and policies.

I'd really like the chance to vote for a real moderate, like Eisenhower; or a true Progressive; like Teddy Roosevelt, or a true liberal, like Russ Feingold.

It is just too dangerous to allow those with money and power to keep limiting our choices between the extreme Right Wing and the Right Wing.

The constant movement to the Right is gradually destroying democracy and the Middle Class.

But hey... It's good for me personally. My friends and my taxes keep getting cut, my investments are doing well, and business has never been better. Too bad that comes at great costs to others.
OMTE

Kittanning, PA

#23309 Aug 25, 2013
Very interesting article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/p...
Impeach Obama Today.
Correction

Adel, GA

#23310 Aug 26, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
"Cupcake" ?
How long did you sit in that 26 year old lazy-boy you found abandoned next door after the neighbors lost the house to foreclosure, scratching your size 52 belly, drinking semi-warm PBR beer, watching reruns of "HeeHaw", and arguing with your common-law wife about Juniors most recent expulsion from school for selling meth to the other kids in grade school, before you can up with "Cupcake" ?
But, to the point.
The author of the quite paraphrased immediately prior to the statement to which you object, also believed that the Church failed to sufficiently object to the growing power of the Nazi Party.
Now maybe you were there, and maybe he wasn't paying attention, or maybe people can disagree about it, but I tend to take the authors representations as more credible than yours. Go figure.
As to trying to accuse progressives and liberals,
who fight continuously to protect our freedom from government intrusion and control,
with being at all similar to the Right Wing Wacko Christian Taliban,
that demands the government creep into people's beds to see who they sleep with; crawl into women's uteruses, to control what they do with their own bodies; wiretap, eavesdrop, assassinate and torture Americans, to keep the continuously scared sh.tless Right Wingers safe from the terrorists hiding in their wife's underwear drawer;
is typical Right Wing Lunacy.
Hey... Can't keep you. Roy is about to say: "HeeeeeeeeewwHaaaaaaaw ", and I wouldn't want you to miss it.
"Cupcake" ?
"Really" ?
Yup, cup-cake.
You are a light weight pseudo-intellectual who twists the truth for convenience.
The information I presented is from Eric Metaxas. Perhaps you've heard of his work, much of which is presented from actual documents preserved for such a time as this.
You definition of progressives and liberals is laughable. I would direct anyone seeking truth to check out the Fabian groups that appeared in Europe and have had a massive impact on American liberals and their collective death wish.
How

Clarkesville, GA

#23311 Aug 26, 2013
Decisions make a difference......
When a country makes a decision, it is now local...
When several countries make a decision it comes under the auspices of the UN.

World gubmints rule over single gubmints, designed by agreement as participants and supporters of the UN.

Their claim is "instead of hundreds of thousands of death, we can limit it to hundreds upon hundreds of death."

How else can the U.S. play the role as cowboy to the indians of the world.

"Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mid...


How

Clarkesville, GA

#23312 Aug 26, 2013
Correction wrote:
<quoted text>Yup, cup-cake.
You are a light weight pseudo-intellectual who twists the truth for convenience.
The information I presented is from Eric Metaxas. Perhaps you've heard of his work, much of which is presented from actual documents preserved for such a time as this.
You definition of progressives and liberals is laughable. I would direct anyone seeking truth to check out the Fabian groups that appeared in Europe and have had a massive impact on American liberals and their collective death wish.

Well now Metaxas has a sense of humor and is a funny man. IO is the opposite and the twix dont meet.

And this is an example of the Fabians handi-work.........

"In the early 1900s Fabian Society members advocated the ideal of a scientifically planned society and supported eugenics by way of sterilization. This is said to have influenced the passage of the Half-Caste Act, and its subsequent implementation in Australia, where children were systematically and forcibly removed from their parents, so that the British colonial regime could "protect" the Aborigine children from their parents.

In an article published in The Guardian on 14 February 2008 (following the apology offered by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to the "stolen generations"), Geoffrey Robertson criticised Fabian socialists for providing the intellectual justification for the eugenics policy that led to the stolen generations scandal. Such views on socialism, inequality and eugenics in early 20th century Fabians were not limited to one individual, but were widely shared in Fabian Society."

Yep, sounds like something IO would be involved in.

Informed Opinion

United States

#23313 Aug 26, 2013
Correction wrote:
<quoted text>Yup, cup-cake.
You are a light weight pseudo-intellectual who twists the truth for convenience.
The information I presented is from Eric Metaxas. Perhaps you've heard of his work, much of which is presented from actual documents preserved for such a time as this.
You definition of progressives and liberals is laughable. I would direct anyone seeking truth to check out the Fabian groups that appeared in Europe and have had a massive impact on American liberals and their collective death wish.
Well Bubba

Perhaps they didn't have dictionaries from Earth at the Right Wing Wacko Planet's Bible Class and Firearms Training Summer Camps you attended where you were taught that calling someone "cupcake",(by the way, there is no hyphen in cupcake), would make you sound all mean and tough, rather than just uneducated and insecure, so please allow me to educate you.

Liberal:
Pronunciation:\ˈli-b(ə-)rəl \
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of , traditional, or established forms or ways, c : an advocate or adherent of especially in individual rights

Let's see "open minded"; advocate of individual rights.

That perfectly describes the Revolutionary Founding Fathers; Gandhi; Mother Theresa; and the biggest "bleeding heart" Liberal of all, Jesus Christ; spot on.

How proud you must be to attack their beliefs of those "Libtards."

Progressive:
Function: noun
1 a : one that is progressive b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action

Let's see:
"moderately improving" through "governmental action"

That perfectly describes Clara Barton, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Bush the First.
Now there's a bunch of crazed Socialist Commies (on Right Wing Wacko Planet).

You Right Wing Wackos are so far past Fascism to you everyone not wearing their Brown Shirts, snitching on their neighbor, and making lists of which minorities will be loaded on the next train for the "Camps", is a bleeding heart "Liberal" who poses a danger to the "Homeland". Just like that Libtard, Jesus.

Which is especially ironic as nobody has their lips more firmly attached to the government teat than a Right Wing Wacko, and they are the greatest danger democracy faces today. Bubba
Informed Opinion

United States

#23314 Aug 26, 2013
How wrote:
<quoted text>Well now Metaxas has a sense of humor and is a funny man. IO is the opposite and the twix dont meet.

And this is an example of the Fabians handi-work.........

"In the early 1900s Fabian Society members advocated the ideal of a scientifically planned society and supported eugenics by way of sterilization. This is said to have influenced the passage of the Half-Caste Act, and its subsequent implementation in Australia, where children were systematically and forcibly removed from their parents, so that the British colonial regime could "protect" the Aborigine children from their parents.

In an article published in The Guardian on 14 February 2008 (following the apology offered by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to the "stolen generations"), Geoffrey Robertson criticised Fabian socialists for providing the intellectual justification for the eugenics policy that led to the stolen generations scandal. Such views on socialism, inequality and eugenics in early 20th century Fabians were not limited to one individual, but were widely shared in Fabian Society."

Yep, sounds like something IO would be involved in.
Absolutely correct that we all have less tolerant days than others.

To pretend millions of "Christians" made a valiant, brave, and desperate stand is simply inaccurate. Just as to pretend the "Confessing Church portion of the Protestant Church was primarily about fighting Nazis, which it wasn't.

PROTESTANT CHURCHES IN NAZI GERMANY

The largest Protestant church in Germany in the 1930s was the German Evangelical Church. Most of Germany's 40 million Protestants were members of this church, although there were smaller so-called "free" Protestant churches, such as Methodist and Baptist churches.
During the 1920s, a movement emerged within the German Evangelical Church called the Deutsche Christen, or "German Christians." The "German Christians" embraced many of the nationalistic and racial aspects of Nazi ideology.
... Once the Nazis came to power, this group sought the creation of a national "Reich Church" and supported a "nazified" version of Christianity.
... The Bekennende Kirche—the "Confessing Church"—emerged in opposition to the “German Christians."
... Both the Confessing Church and the "German Christians" remained part of the German Evangelical Church, and the result was a Kirchenkampf, or "church struggle" within German Protestantism.
... The most famous members of the Confessing Church were the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, executed for his role in the conspiracy to overthrow the regime, and Pastor Martin Niemöller, who spent seven years in concentration camps for his criticisms of Hitler.

Hey.. Wasn't it Niemoller I quoted who denounced the Church for not fighting hard enough against the Nazis ?

Yea, that's the ticket.

(But what would the Minister in the Confessing Church sent to the Concentration Camp for criticizing Hitler know about the Church's failure to criticize Hitler ?) Probably more than any other human being.

... Yet these clergymen were not typical of the Confessing Church; despite their examples, the Protestant Kirchenkampf was mostly an internal church matter, not a fight against National Socialism.

... Even in the Confessing Church, most church leaders were primarily concerned with blocking state and ideological interference in church affairs.

Don't worry .... Proving that everything I post is true, documented, and beyond rational attack, is simply not that hard.
Informed Opinion

United States

#23315 Aug 26, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>Absolutely correct that we all have less tolerant days than others.

To pretend millions of "Christians" made a valiant, brave, and desperate stand is simply inaccurate. Just as to pretend the "Confessing Church portion of the Protestant Church was primarily about fighting Nazis, which it wasn't.

PROTESTANT CHURCHES IN NAZI GERMANY

The largest Protestant church in Germany in the 1930s was the German Evangelical Church. Most of Germany's 40 million Protestants were members of this church, although there were smaller so-called "free" Protestant churches, such as Methodist and Baptist churches.
During the 1920s, a movement emerged within the German Evangelical Church called the Deutsche Christen, or "German Christians." The "German Christians" embraced many of the nationalistic and racial aspects of Nazi ideology.
... Once the Nazis came to power, this group sought the creation of a national "Reich Church" and supported a "nazified" version of Christianity.
... The Bekennende Kirche—the "Confessing Church"—emerged in opposition to the “German Christians."
... Both the Confessing Church and the "German Christians" remained part of the German Evangelical Church, and the result was a Kirchenkampf, or "church struggle" within German Protestantism.
... The most famous members of the Confessing Church were the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, executed for his role in the conspiracy to overthrow the regime, and Pastor Martin Niemöller, who spent seven years in concentration camps for his criticisms of Hitler.

Hey.. Wasn't it Niemoller I quoted who denounced the Church for not fighting hard enough against the Nazis ?

Yea, that's the ticket.

(But what would the Minister in the Confessing Church sent to the Concentration Camp for criticizing Hitler know about the Church's failure to criticize Hitler ?) Probably more than any other human being.

... Yet these clergymen were not typical of the Confessing Church; despite their examples, the Protestant Kirchenkampf was mostly an internal church matter, not a fight against National Socialism.

... Even in the Confessing Church, most church leaders were primarily concerned with blocking state and ideological interference in church affairs.

Don't worry .... Proving that everything I post is true, documented, and beyond rational attack, is simply not that hard.
By the way... How did the "Fabians" enter the dispute, and how can I be linked to them ?

But I gotta say - After researching them, they sound a lot like that bleeding heart Utopian Liberal "Jesus" guy.

And I still would love o hear how people who claim to follow the most liberal, revolutionary, socialist, bleeding heart in history, "Jesus Christ", keep attacking "Liberals" ?

Is the new plastic "WWJD" wristband passed out at Sunday School mean "What Wouldn't Jesus Do ?"
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23316 Aug 26, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
"Attacked ?"
Nobody "attacked" Idaho.
Nobody "attacked" Colorado.
People built houses in forests that occasionally burn, and shockingly the forests occasionally burn, and the government takes my money to subsidize their choices, instead of allowing Capitalism to work, making them responsible for their decisions.

The government takes money out of my pocket to subsidize Arnold Schwartzenegger's million dollar cabin, and thousands of others, built in fire probe forests, a continent away.

Remember all the comments about helping people in New Orleans - Right Wingers screamed the people who built or lived there were "stupid" - they built in flood zones in a state that gets hit by hurricanes. Right Wingers screamed that the help given New Orleans was Socialism,(except to the Right Wingers who lived there.)

So tell me again why it's not Socialism to take money out of my pocket to subsidize people a continent away who want to live in forests that burn,
but,
it is Socialism to help feed a 6 month old baby in urban Atlanta.
Yeah, the evils of Socialism, a favorite whipping post of the clueless and uninformed.

Now, why are they burning...

http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats/qu...
Q: Wild fires burned nearly 9 million acres in 2006. What contributed to this catastrophe?

A: Forest managers and natural resource experts are in agreement that many decades of successful fire suppression is part of the reason, although large brush fires in Texas and Oklahoma in the winter months were also a factor. Fires can exact a heavy toll on the ecosystem and the economy of rural communities. Last year, fires disrupted hundreds of communities and forced thousands of people from their homes in the south and the western US, where the largest fires occurred.

Q: If fire suppression leads to bigger fires, why not just let them burn?

A: Where lightning fires are burning within desired parameters, those incidents can be managed for the beneficial effects of fire. However, that is not appropriate to every situation. The growth of the wildland-urban interface in the last 50 years means that lives and homes are at stake if a forest catches fire. The Forest Service does not just let them burn, every fire receives an appropriate management response. Fire will burn when conditions in the forest and the weather are right for it. However, fire is important part of the forest ecosystem. Some oaks and pines, for example, need fire to crack their seeds and regenerate. Suppressing fires had the unintended consequence of building up vegetation, debris, and other flammable materials on the forest floor. Add to this mix, drought and the crowded conditions in the forests. Once ignited, severe forest fires can occur. Unnaturally dense forests contribute to big fires. For instance, where 50 years ago only a few hundred trees grew on an acre, today thousands of trees are crowded in the same space. Multiply that by millions of acres of forests and you get the combustible picture. For another, many urban areas are being situated closer and closer to forested landscapes for their aesthetic and economic values. There is inherent danger in building homes in or near forestlands. People are not the only victims of forest fires: wildlife loses their habitat, hillsides erode into and silt up rivers, burnt mountains allow floods and floods wash away homes and businesses.

Q: What needs to be done?

A: Treatments to reduce fuels and restore ecosystems involve various techniques, including thinning, prescribed burning, and clearing the forest of debris. Post-fire rehabilitation includes restoring burned habitat and landscapes, repairing damaged roads and rivers, replanting trees, and preventing erosion.
was said

Dawsonville, GA

#23317 Aug 26, 2013
How wrote:
The longer the posts, the less I read the garbage.
Makes no difference if you read it or not, you don't have the compression skills to understand a damn thing. I could list many examples from your posts that prove that statement, but you won't read or understand what was said.
How

Clarkesville, GA

#23318 Aug 26, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Bubba
Perhaps they didn't have dictionaries from Earth at the Right Wing Wacko Planet's Bible Class and Firearms Training Summer Camps you attended where you were taught that calling someone "cupcake",(by the way, there is no hyphen in cupcake), would make you sound all mean and tough, rather than just uneducated and insecure, so please allow me to educate you.
Liberal:
Pronunciation:\ˈli-b(ə-)rəl \
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of , traditional, or established forms or ways, c : an advocate or adherent of especially in individual rights
Let's see "open minded"; advocate of individual rights.
That perfectly describes the Revolutionary Founding Fathers; Gandhi; Mother Theresa; and the biggest "bleeding heart" Liberal of all, Jesus Christ; spot on.
How proud you must be to attack their beliefs of those "Libtards."
Progressive:
Function: noun
1 a : one that is progressive b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action
Let's see:
"moderately improving" through "governmental action"
That perfectly describes Clara Barton, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Bush the First.
Now there's a bunch of crazed Socialist Commies (on Right Wing Wacko Planet).
You Right Wing Wackos are so far past Fascism to you everyone not wearing their Brown Shirts, snitching on their neighbor, and making lists of which minorities will be loaded on the next train for the "Camps", is a bleeding heart "Liberal" who poses a danger to the "Homeland". Just like that Libtard, Jesus.
Which is especially ironic as nobody has their lips more firmly attached to the government teat than a Right Wing Wacko, and they are the greatest danger democracy faces today. Bubba

To set the record straight, IO has produced a lot of Methane on topix about Jesus being a Liberal. I will deal with this in another post because there is not enough space in this post due to IOs long winded ramblings.


How

Clarkesville, GA

#23319 Aug 26, 2013

Im not going to write a long dissertation, only a few paragraphs to implant an idea, that if thought upon by each person, with reasonable and sensible understanding, will draw you closer to an understanding of what I am making an effort to impart to posters. I will use Religion and the American Revolution to show there is a parallel between the two.

The initial Religion, which many Religions of the world came from, was the Law given in the Old Testament to the Jews. The Liberal Jews living during the times would continually seek out new Gods such as Baal, Moloch, and other by worshiping Idols made by man, which is a trait of Liberals; never satisfied, always seeking to pervert the established order.
The Old Testament is full of Prophets (conservatives) making efforts to call the people back to the original Law. The Liberal Jews refused time and time again throughout the centuries to return to true worship. The Liberal Jews sacrificed their babies to Moloch, worshipped at the Baal altar, and delved into Spiritualism with the dead. IO would call this the individual rights of each person as he does with Abortion, gay marriage, and adult/child relationships.(A liberal viewpoint.)
During the time of Jesus, there was the Sanhedrin (a liberal bunch that corrupted the original Law) that is much like the Libroids of today. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Scribes could be equated with our present government. The Pharisees being the conservatives, the Sadducees being the liberals, the Scribes being the Courts, and the Sanhedrin being the President and heads of State.
All of the above corrupted the law, oppressed the people from true worship, and allowed liberal ideas to flow like water over the dam.

John the Baptist, being a conservative, came to call the people back to true worship. Being a forerunner of Jesus who was the truth and light and fulfillment of the Law, John recognized Jesus as the fulfillment of the Law. And from Jesus, many of all the Christian versions were established to bring man back to the roots of real worship (which was the original religion established by God)

So Jesus, by bringing back the true original worship, would be considered a conservative, as conservatives are the ones who stand on original laws for the benefit of all people.


continued...
How

Clarkesville, GA

#23320 Aug 26, 2013
continued.....

The American Revolution was no less than an upheaval of oppression; brought about by men who considered oppression by a King tantamount to control by the devil himself. Their purpose was to instill the rights of man, and the equality of each person. Most of those involved in writing the Constitution were men of Christian background. The Constitution came as close as man can come to fulfilling the Ideals expressed by the Bible as we know it today. The Constitution was an effort, by man, to instill the ideals of Christianity established by Jesus, who fulfilled the Old Testament Law, given to man by God. Without Christianity there would be no Constitution, because honest men recognize the inherent God given rights of man.

The original Old Testament Laws would become the conservative viewpoint when established. It is when efforts to live outside the law are deemed worthy, i.e. Idol worship, baby sacrifice, etc., do we see where the Liberals make their stand. Change to satisfy the masses.
We see the same with the U.S. constitution. The Constitution was established to break oppression, and became the standard bearer for conservatives. The Liberals and the Conservatives justly used the laws of the Constitution, to break slavery and other oppressions by over zealot government officials.
The Liberals, when failing in the congress, now use the Courts (Scribes) to further their idolatry of individual rights to kill babies, give sanctions to gays, give moral support to adult/child relations, and to support all manner of personal corruption by individuals and entities, in order to further their agenda of dependence on government. Their goal is Utopianism, the dream of Liberals since civilizations began.


And now I will sit back and watch the libroids hyper-ventilate, obfuscate, blow a gasket, and generally make long winded posts.
How

Clarkesville, GA

#23321 Aug 26, 2013
was said wrote:
<quoted text>
Makes no difference if you read it or not, you don't have the compression skills to understand a damn thing. I could list many examples from your posts that prove that statement, but you won't read or understand what was said.

Well ugly eve, I do have some trouble understanding you. what are compression skills?

BTW, don't give any more examples, I might die from laughing.
doubt it

Dawsonville, GA

#23322 Aug 26, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, the evils of Socialism, a favorite whipping post of the clueless and uninformed.
Now, why are they burning...
http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats/qu...
Q: Wild fires burned nearly 9 million acres in 2006. What contributed to this catastrophe?
A: Forest managers and natural resource experts are in agreement that many decades of successful fire suppression is part of the reason, although large brush fires in Texas and Oklahoma in the winter months were also a factor. Fires can exact a heavy toll on the ecosystem and the economy of rural communities. Last year, fires disrupted hundreds of communities and forced thousands of people from their homes in the south and the western US, where the largest fires occurred.
Q: If fire suppression leads to bigger fires, why not just let them burn?
A: Where lightning fires are burning within desired parameters, those incidents can be managed for the beneficial effects of fire. However, that is not appropriate to every situation. The growth of the wildland-urban interface in the last 50 years means that lives and homes are at stake if a forest catches fire. The Forest Service does not just let them burn, every fire receives an appropriate management response. Fire will burn when conditions in the forest and the weather are right for it. However, fire is important part of the forest ecosystem. Some oaks and pines, for example, need fire to crack their seeds and regenerate. Suppressing fires had the unintended consequence of building up vegetation, debris, and other flammable materials on the forest floor. Add to this mix, drought and the crowded conditions in the forests. Once ignited, severe forest fires can occur. Unnaturally dense forests contribute to big fires. For instance, where 50 years ago only a few hundred trees grew on an acre, today thousands of trees are crowded in the same space. Multiply that by millions of acres of forests and you get the combustible picture. For another, many urban areas are being situated closer and closer to forested landscapes for their aesthetic and economic values. There is inherent danger in building homes in or near forestlands. People are not the only victims of forest fires: wildlife loses their habitat, hillsides erode into and silt up rivers, burnt mountains allow floods and floods wash away homes and businesses.
Q: What needs to be done?
A: Treatments to reduce fuels and restore ecosystems involve various techniques, including thinning, prescribed burning, and clearing the forest of debris. Post-fire rehabilitation includes restoring burned habitat and landscapes, repairing damaged roads and rivers, replanting trees, and preventing erosion.
You obviously know what you are talking about and have some form of higher education, at least past the 6th grade. The people you are having these discussions with don't fit that model. You just might consider working more to the point using much shorter statements while staying away from words larger that hunting or fishing. Few get past the first paragraph before they are off to the frig for another Bud. To you its like shooting fish in a barrel, but in this case the fish don't know they have been shot. Maybe its because they have supernatural powers, but I doubt it.
ugly eve

Dawsonville, GA

#23323 Aug 26, 2013
How wrote:
<quoted text>
Well ugly eve, I do have some trouble understanding you. what are compression skills?
BTW, don't give any more examples, I might die from laughing.
Well you got me, I spelled a word wrong and you actually noticed. That's one point for you. I think I will actulley feel a sense of acomplisment were you too dye from laghing.

Are you OK????
How

Clarkesville, GA

#23324 Aug 26, 2013
Brrrrrr
Farmer's Almanac refutes Gore......

""Farmers' Almanac" predicts a "bitterly cold" winter"


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57600023/...

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.

Brunswick Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
nasty woman. you've been warned. 7 hr Don smith 6
Speed Trap along the I-95 corridor in Mcintosh ... (Nov '15) Mar 8 Ben 30
What McIntosh/Darien does not want you to know (May '13) Feb 28 Barbara78 33
Poll Is Brunswick a racist town Feb 28 dverdan363 1
Part 12 Guy Heinze Jr. (May '10) Feb '17 Blue 1,221
i-95 accident (Mar '09) Feb '17 GodsPrincess2939 6
immigration issues Jan '17 Heywood 1

Brunswick Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brunswick Mortgages