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

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#32362 Nov 28, 2013
the truth wrote:
<quoted text>
....
6. Nothing Rush or FNC says or does surprises me. Nothing they say or do is done without the profit motive at the top of the list. What really bothers me is people like you who buy the crap they sell, and they are selling something, advertising, nothing more.
7. As for Palin, who was a paid for a book and appearances on FNC by the owner Murdock. She has made a fortune with her cute rants at Tea bagger conferences. A person who quit her job as governor of Alaska to go make her fortune. A person who has allowed her daughter to do reality TV, and who herself has also done reality TV. That person has opened the door to any attack by anyone and in my opinion really truly deserves to be attacked.
8. NOBODY should use this government to force their religious believes on anyone, that's what you want to do, and what you do. Your stand on abortion is a religious one and for you to try and pass laws based on what your religion is, that's just wrong.
Why can't you live your religious life as you want and let others do the same????
More Rush and Fox envy. There is nothing the Left abhors more than those with a different opinion who are actually successful in getting their opinions out to the American citizens who agree with them.
==========

Palin resigned because liberal activists keep filing complaint after complaint ( dismissed, thank you very much) that were costing the Palins a fortune in personal legal expenses due to the formulation of Alaska laws regarding legal fees and public servants. Again, the Left saw a threat and tried to destroy the person rather than fight her honorably in the arena of ideas - but that is the Saul Alinsky playbook in action. And you still use middle school vulgarity, how pathetic.
==========

"NOBODY should use this government to force their religious believes on anyone, that's what you want to do, and what you do. Your stand on abortion is a religious one and for you to try and pass laws based on what your religion is, that's just wrong."

PLEASE TELL THIS TO THE LEFTIES.

And you still ignore the humanist and atheists pro-lifers - what a shock, because if you can't use your
"don't force your religious beliefs on others" argument, what do you have left - NOTHING - except the BELIEF that no one should have to face the consequences of their own irresponsible and selfish behavior - well, except the innocent child that may result.
==========

"Why can't you live your religious life as you want and let others do the same????"

Oh, so only those with beliefs you AGREE with have the right to voice their opinion and try and elect representatives who hold the same views. How very Leftist of you.

And where would this country be if the abolitionists had taken your position? And the civil rights proponents?
tea party wins again

Dawsonville, GA

#32363 Nov 28, 2013
Loony libturds news of the day, "New Food stamp cuts driving more people to food banks, they can't keep up with the demand."

Lazy good for nothing people living off the system are paying the price for not having a job that allows them to feed their families. The government is finally doing what's right, cutting food stamps to the lazy. This breakthrough is the result of what the Tea Party has done, I can only thank them, may the leaches on society starve.

See yawl at church on Sunday.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#32364 Nov 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
And one of the biggest transformations was the emancipation of the slaves - a drive led by religious conservatives.

But you are absolutely right that the creation and obscene growth of the welfare state was absolutely driven by liberals. And look at the result, more and more of our citizens enslaved in a system that does not encourage self reliance, but actually discourages an intact family unit. And that is just one example of the familiar of the liberal agenda.
Uhmmm, "a drive led by religious conservatives", you are soooo transparent, I wonder if those in the South viewed them as "religious conservatives", or those in the North who believed in the superiority of one race over another.

Then just more blah, blah, blah, welfare state, blah, blah, blah, liberal agenda blah, blah, blah.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#32365 Nov 29, 2013
just sayin wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
So you are the authority on everything. I understand.
I don't force myself or my convictions on anyone, but I don't feel the need to let every fringe piece of immorality be given special treatment at my expense.
Yes indeed go back to speaking into the toilet, it suits you and the nonsense you spew.
What an interesting concept "fringe piece of immorality".

Thank goodness you're not forcing your convictions on anyone, people might think that you have the ability to decide what constitutes the fringe, or what constitutes immorality for all of us, not just yourself.

There was a time when a "fringe piece of immorality" included inter-racial marriage, now this fringe is "given special treatment" at our expense.

Keep posting, people see through you.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#32366 Nov 29, 2013
Obamacare’s Secret Success
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 28, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/opinion/kru... ;

...It was also supposed to be about “bending the curve”— slowing the seemingly inexorable rise in health costs.

Much of the Beltway establishment scoffed at the promise of cost savings. The prevalent attitude in Washington is that reform isn’t real unless the little people suffer; serious savings are supposed to come from things like raising the Medicare age (which the Congressional Budget Office recently concluded would, in fact, hardly save any money) and throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. True, a 2011 letter signed by hundreds of health and labor economists pointed out that “the Affordable Care Act contains essentially every cost-containment provision policy analysts have considered effective in reducing the rate of medical spending.” But such expert views were largely ignored.

...Still, the facts are striking. Since 2010, when the act was passed, real health spending per capita — that is, total spending adjusted for overall inflation and population growth — has risen less than a third as rapidly as its long-term average. Real spending per Medicare recipient hasn’t risen at all; real spending per Medicaid beneficiary has actually fallen slightly.

...A better story focuses on what appears to be a decline in some kinds of medical innovation — in particular, an absence of expensive new blockbuster drugs, even as existing drugs go off-patent and can be replaced with cheaper generic brands. This is a real phenomenon; it is, in fact, the main reason the Medicare drug program has ended up costing less than originally projected. But since drugs are only about 10 percent of health spending, it can only explain so much.

So what aspects of Obamacare might be causing health costs to slow? One clear answer is the act’s reduction in Medicare “overpayments”— mainly a reduction in the subsidies to private insurers offering Medicare Advantage Plans, but also cuts in some provider payments. A less certain but likely source of savings involves changes in the way Medicare pays for services. The program now penalizes hospitals if many of their patients end up being readmitted soon after being released — an indicator of poor care — and readmission rates have, in fact, fallen substantially. Medicare is also encouraging a shift from fee-for-service, in which doctors and hospitals get paid by the procedure, to “accountable care,” in which health organizations get rewarded for overall success in improving care while controlling costs.

Furthermore, there’s evidence that Medicare savings “spill over” to the rest of the health care system — that when Medicare manages to slow cost growth, private insurance gets cheaper, too.

And the biggest savings may be yet to come. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel with the power to impose cost-saving measures (subject to Congressional overrides) if Medicare spending grows above target, hasn’t yet been established, in part because of the near-certainty that any appointments to the board would be filibustered by Republicans yelling about “death panels.” Now that the filibuster has been reformed, the board can come into being.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#32367 Nov 29, 2013
Just more envy of the Right's ability to get their message out...

A Progressive Pope is Driving the Wingnuts Batty
by Vyan
THU NOV 28, 2013 AT 02:26 PM PST
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/28/1258...

As Pope Francis comes more and more out of the Progressive Closet he begins to gain more and more pushback from the Rightwing who have long claimed that their Unrepentant Greed was Godly.

Unfortunately it isn't, and the Pope has been most clear on this.

“As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems,” the pope said in the 224-page document that essentially serves as his official platform.

...The Pope's comments apparently got deeply under the skin of Fox Business Host Stuart Varney.

“Capitalism, in my opinion, is a liberator,” he said.“The free choice of millions of people is the essence of freedom. In my opinion, society benefits most when people are free to pursue their own self-interest. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it is not. When individuals are free, we collectively are better off in every way, financially and spiritually.”

It doesn't seem to matter to Varney that the Pope didn't criticize "People's Freedom or Self-Interest" - he criticize The Markets. He criticized the manipulation of those markets using financial speculation. It's not an accident that Varney gets this wrong, because he's a knave. A lapdog of the Markets. His job is to make sure that his True Religion - Unfeterred Greed - is never questioned, never criticized and if it is that persons veracity and character has to be Destroyed.

It just becomes a little difficult when that person - Is the Holy Pontiff.

See how he tries to rewrite and redefine the Pope's word for him.

“I go to church to save my soul,” Varney said.“It’s got nothing to do with my vote. Pope Francis has linked the two. He has offered direct criticism of a specific political system. He has characterized negatively that system. I think he wants to influence my politics.”

A political system? He criticized a Political System? No actually, he didn't. He criticized a Financial System, by putting that system into a Moral Context. A context in which it is sorely, severely lacking. Politics is about how people make choices in who their Political Leaders will be. In this case Varney is confusing Politics with Finances, and not hardly an accident.

For years we've been hearing from the Right-wing how the U.S. is a "Christian Nation". How we should and must let our Christian Value guide how we vote, and how we govern. That such considerations are what drives the anti-Choice movement, and the Prayer-In-Schools movement and the Creationist/Anti-Science movement - yet when the Head of the Largest Christian Organization in the World says that our financial systems should have a moral component.

Heads Start to Explode.
Scott

Nicholasville, KY

#32368 Nov 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhmmm, "a drive led by religious conservatives", you are soooo transparent, I wonder if those in the South viewed them as "religious conservatives", or those in the North who believed in the superiority of one race over another.
Then just more blah, blah, blah, welfare state, blah, blah, blah, liberal agenda blah, blah, blah.
"Then just more blah, blah, blah, welfare state, blah, blah, blah, liberal agenda blah, blah, blah."

Yours is an excellent response, articulate and well thought out.

I believe with your informative, yet, scathing rebuttal, you have finally put Aggie firmly in her place. Although, I must add that you may have raised the bar to such heights so as to create an unreachable level for all of us.

I would only suggest, with all due respect, you post more often using your own words rather than diving into the great Internet Dumpster to find what you deem as a suitable "cut and paste" response. I suggest this only so you might display your writing talents more often. Keep up the great work. Obama needs you now, more than ever.

Crazy People

Wattsville, AL

#32369 Nov 29, 2013
What kind of crazy people spend their time on topix during Thanksgiving.
Homeless?
No family?
topix addiction?
People who consider topix the most important thing in their life?
People with no family or friends?

Get a life people!!!

Since: Sep 13

Columbus, GA

#32370 Nov 29, 2013
Crazy People wrote:
What kind of crazy people spend their time on topix during Thanksgiving.
Homeless?
No family?
topix addiction?
People who consider topix the most important thing in their life?
People with no family or friends?
Get a life people!!!
Are you kidding? They have no lives. I was thinking that while reading the arguments from yesterday into today.

I sincerely think these folks would argue politics at a funeral (assuming they have any family or friends left).
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#32371 Nov 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
...How about the businesses that Obamacare wants to force to pay for medical treatment against THEIR beliefs - do you defend their rights?
Would that be businesses that are really just intangible corporate entities, established to protect their founders from legal liability?

Now that an intangible corporate entity has a political voice paritially protected under the First Amendment, should the remainder of First Amendment protections be extended also?

If the religious beliefs of an intangible corporate entity are recognized, and these religious beliefs are allowed to impact the package of benefits offered an employee, what of the religious beliefs that are contrary to your own?

Should Christian Science corporate entities offer no health coverage?

Should Jehovah's Witnesses corporate entities not cover blood transfusions?

If personal beliefs are allowed to flow from the Corporate Officer to the intangible corporate entity, does liability flow back to the Corporate Officers?

How should this impact their Federal Protections, can a corporate entity only hire individuals of a particular religion (the one true path), one particular race (the one true race, no mixed race households), or just one sex (women should not work outside the home)?
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#32372 Nov 29, 2013
Scott wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
"Then just more blah, blah, blah, welfare state, blah, blah, blah, liberal agenda blah, blah, blah."
Yours is an excellent response, articulate and well thought out.
I believe with your informative, yet, scathing rebuttal, you have finally put Aggie firmly in her place. Although, I must add that you may have raised the bar to such heights so as to create an unreachable level for all of us.
I would only suggest, with all due respect, you post more often using your own words rather than diving into the great Internet Dumpster to find what you deem as a suitable "cut and paste" response. I suggest this only so you might display your writing talents more often. Keep up the great work. Obama needs you now, more than ever.
Then it should be easy for you to offer a scathing rebuttal to these flawed cut and paste offerings. Yet no scathing rebuttal can be found anywhere in your posts.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#32373 Nov 29, 2013
I guess the Pope just doesn't understand how shiftless and lazy folks really are.

A pope’s pointed message
By Eugene Robinson
2013-11-28
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene...

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories, which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.”

That passage is not from some Occupy Wall Street manifesto. It was written by Pope Francis in a stunning new treatise on the Catholic Church’s role in society — and it is a powerful reminder that, however tiresome the political trench warfare in Washington may be, we have a duty to fight on.

...“To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed,” Francis wrote.“Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.”

Francis explicitly calls for “financial reform,” though he wisely does not lay out a policy agenda. But in a passage likely to make libertarians want to hide amid the dense thickets of Ayn Rand’s prose, where no light can penetrate, Francis wrote that “the private ownership of goods is justified by the need to protect and increase them, so that they can better serve the common good; for this reason, solidarity must be lived as the decision to restore to the poor what belongs to them.”
the truth

Dawsonville, GA

#32374 Nov 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good grief, what a load.
"Being made to pay for health care in not a belief, unless believing that someone else will pay for your treatment if you don't is considered a belief, then you are right." - Umm, virtually incoherent. "being made to pay for health care in not a belief..." - what?????
"When these people being forced to pay for their for health insurance sign legal documents that they will not get or expect to get treated at hospitals and emergency rooms unless they pay up front, I will agree." - more incoherence, "when these people being forced to pay ... will not ...get treated... unless they pay up front" - what in the world were you trying to say?
You and Ed Rendell may have a lot in common. You want to use the tragedy of murdered children to bring about your desire for gun control. So what comes after the ban of AK-47s, what would YOU allow law abiding American citizens to have? Sandy Hook was the result of a mentally disturbed young man not receiving the psychiatric help he needed and an apparently overwhelmed mother who made very poor decisions. Ed Rendell said the following:
"The good thing about Newtown is, it was so horrific that I think it galvanized Americans to a point where the intensity on our side is going to match the intensity on their side."
I consider that incredibly callous, myself. You would probably see nothing wrong with it.
"You don't have a problem with ObamaCare, other than the perceived cost to you and you know it, just admit it, it can't make you look any worse than you already do." You are as ill-informed about my motivations as you are about virtually everything you expound on. My reasons have been given time and again, you are just too thick to let reason sink in.
Will not waste anymore time with you, your motives are as obvious as your source of information, why not just own what you are. You can't hide it no matter how hard you try.

They only comment I will make in parting is that I feel really sad for a person who puts such a low value on children, especially dead children. Thinking that an AK 47 is a weapon of defense shows just how ignorant you really are. And the comment asking what is next to be banned if and AK47 is banded, I ask you want is next that's OK for a citizen to have, a nuclear warhead or a ICBM?
I can see the arguments for that coming, just think how many children some nut can kill when he gets one of those at the local gun show. Wake up, Grow up and take some responsibility for your actions. Your lack of action when it comes to responsible gun laws is ALSO responsible for the death of those children. NOBODY wants to take guns from Americans, you can still kill people with responsible gun laws, just not in mass. Would you care to tell the people on Topix why you insist on guns with one purpose, to kill lots of people real fast.
I for one don't care what you say, hell, nothing you say makes any real sense. You really need to look at other sources for your information, if you really cared you would, so you don't~

And don't say I am the same, I watch and listen to ALL the people that you do. Adding other points of few and real news to your list and maybe over time you will wake up and find out that no issue is all black or white.
OMTE

Ashburn, GA

#32375 Nov 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
Just more envy of the Right's ability to get their message out...
A Progressive Pope is Driving the Wingnuts Batty
by Vyan
THU NOV 28, 2013 AT 02:26 PM PST
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/28/1258...
As Pope Francis comes more and more out of the Progressive Closet he begins to gain more and more pushback from the Rightwing who have long claimed that their Unrepentant Greed was Godly.
Unfortunately it isn't, and the Pope has been most clear on this.
“As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems,” the pope said in the 224-page document that essentially serves as his official platform.
...The Pope's comments apparently got deeply under the skin of Fox Business Host Stuart Varney.
“Capitalism, in my opinion, is a liberator,” he said.“The free choice of millions of people is the essence of freedom. In my opinion, society benefits most when people are free to pursue their own self-interest. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it is not. When individuals are free, we collectively are better off in every way, financially and spiritually.”
It doesn't seem to matter to Varney that the Pope didn't criticize "People's Freedom or Self-Interest" - he criticize The Markets. He criticized the manipulation of those markets using financial speculation. It's not an accident that Varney gets this wrong, because he's a knave. A lapdog of the Markets. His job is to make sure that his True Religion - Unfeterred Greed - is never questioned, never criticized and if it is that persons veracity and character has to be Destroyed.
It just becomes a little difficult when that person - Is the Holy Pontiff.
See how he tries to rewrite and redefine the Pope's word for him.
“I go to church to save my soul,” Varney said.“It’s got nothing to do with my vote. Pope Francis has linked the two. He has offered direct criticism of a specific political system. He has characterized negatively that system. I think he wants to influence my politics.”
A political system? He criticized a Political System? No actually, he didn't. He criticized a Financial System, by putting that system into a Moral Context. A context in which it is sorely, severely lacking. Politics is about how people make choices in who their Political Leaders will be. In this case Varney is confusing Politics with Finances, and not hardly an accident.
For years we've been hearing from the Right-wing how the U.S. is a "Christian Nation". How we should and must let our Christian Value guide how we vote, and how we govern. That such considerations are what drives the anti-Choice movement, and the Prayer-In-Schools movement and the Creationist/Anti-Science movement - yet when the Head of the Largest Christian Organization in the World says that our financial systems should have a moral component.
Heads Start to Explode.
I guess even the Pope has limits to his progressiveness.... Even he knows abortion is wrong....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/...
Either that or he just doesn't like Nancy Pelosi... Huh?:)

Judged:

12

12

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#32376 Nov 29, 2013
THU NOV 28, 2013 AT 05:02 AM PST
How ACA can save lives: let’s visit my Emergency Room on Thanksgiving morning
by ERdoc in PA
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/28/1258...

One of the more hackneyed and deceptive statements throughout the Affordable Care Act debate was how we have “the best healthcare delivery system in the world”. I’ve been an ER doc for about a decade, and I know from first-hand experience that it just ain't so.

But what really stuck in the collective craw of emergency physicians was the glib response to the lack of insurance coverage for millions. More than one politician suggested that people could always go to the Emergency Room. Uh huh. News flash: Emergency Rooms are for, you know, emergencies. When folks visit the ER for conditions not deemed to be life threatening, well-intended providers often don’t fix the problems, or even dig deep to figure them out – there just isn’t time or resources to do it. And poorly-treated, less dangerous conditions can sometimes blossom into full-blown disasters. Without insurance, and therefore without access to non-emergency providers, these situations become very expensive, and… they can kill. The ACA, bringing many patients under the umbrella of coverage, will avert the severe outcome for many....
done with shopping

Alpharetta, GA

#32377 Nov 29, 2013
I see the obamatards are out in full force again. Should make for an enjoyable reading and laughing afternoon.
Scott

Nicholasville, KY

#32378 Nov 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it should be easy for you to offer a scathing rebuttal to these flawed cut and paste offerings. Yet no scathing rebuttal can be found anywhere in your posts.
That's because I just can't seem to get the hang of scathing. The few times I have tried to scathe, I admit I have failed. I guess I am just not a scathing rebuttal kind of guy.

B.T.W., this morning after performing some housekeeping on my computer, I noticed your cut and paste about the ER doctor in the bottom of the Internet Dumpster. It was under an article on how to make your own Twinkies and another about a taxidermist in Iowa who specializes in mounting common house mice in various poses.

“Registered Conservative”

Since: Jul 11

Draketown, GA

#32379 Nov 29, 2013
the truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Will not waste anymore time with you, your motives are as obvious as your source of information, why not just own what you are. You can't hide it no matter how hard you try.
They only comment I will make in parting is that I feel really sad for a person who puts such a low value on children, especially dead children. Thinking that an AK 47 is a weapon of defense shows just how ignorant you really are. And the comment asking what is next to be banned if and AK47 is banded, I ask you want is next that's OK for a citizen to have, a nuclear warhead or a ICBM?
I can see the arguments for that coming, just think how many children some nut can kill when he gets one of those at the local gun show. Wake up, Grow up and take some responsibility for your actions. Your lack of action when it comes to responsible gun laws is ALSO responsible for the death of those children. NOBODY wants to take guns from Americans, you can still kill people with responsible gun laws, just not in mass. Would you care to tell the people on Topix why you insist on guns with one purpose, to kill lots of people real fast.
I for one don't care what you say, hell, nothing you say makes any real sense. You really need to look at other sources for your information, if you really cared you would, so you don't~
And don't say I am the same, I watch and listen to ALL the people that you do. Adding other points of few and real news to your list and maybe over time you will wake up and find out that no issue is all black or white.
Would you care to tell the people on Topix why you insist on punishing the law abiding citizens, and not the criminals?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#32380 Nov 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhmmm, "a drive led by religious conservatives", you are soooo transparent, I wonder if those in the South viewed them as "religious conservatives", or those in the North who believed in the superiority of one race over another.
Then just more blah, blah, blah, welfare state, blah, blah, blah, liberal agenda blah, blah, blah.
Truth usually is transparent.

As for the rest, speaking of blah, blah, blah.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#32381 Nov 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that be businesses that are really just intangible corporate entities, established to protect their founders from legal liability?
Now that an intangible corporate entity has a political voice paritially protected under the First Amendment, should the remainder of First Amendment protections be extended also?
If the religious beliefs of an intangible corporate entity are recognized, and these religious beliefs are allowed to impact the package of benefits offered an employee, what of the religious beliefs that are contrary to your own?
Should Christian Science corporate entities offer no health coverage?
Should Jehovah's Witnesses corporate entities not cover blood transfusions?
If personal beliefs are allowed to flow from the Corporate Officer to the intangible corporate entity, does liability flow back to the Corporate Officers?
How should this impact their Federal Protections, can a corporate entity only hire individuals of a particular religion (the one true path), one particular race (the one true race, no mixed race households), or just one sex (women should not work outside the home)?
“MY FAMILY AND I ARE ENCOURAGED THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS AGREED TO DECIDE OUR CASE. THIS LEGAL CHALLENGE HAS ALWAYS REMAINED ABOUT ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY: THE RIGHT OF OUR FAMILY BUSINESSES TO LIVE OUT OUR SINCERE AND DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AS GUARANTEED BY THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION. BUSINESS OWNERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN VIOLATING THEIR FAITH AND VIOLATING THE LAW.”
— DAVID GREEN, HOBBY LOBBY’S FOUNDER AND CEO

As for the rest of your post, I will simply refer back to post #32254 which you may look back to or ignore as you see fit.

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
What McIntosh/Darien does not want you to know (May '13) Apr 22 darienspeedtrap 24
What Y'all think of District Attorney Jackie Jo... (Nov '11) Apr 13 David 99
Trump may be doing us a favor Mar '16 JillyJelly 1
Speed Trap along the I-95 corridor in Mcintosh ... Mar '16 davefash 5
megan swantek (Jun '13) Mar '16 yo!! 3
News Report: GOP Leaders Met With Elon Musk, Tim Coo... Mar '16 biten back 1
News Incorporate St. Simons and Sea islands? Yes No (Mar '06) Mar '16 Bii Hilton 3
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brunswick Mortgages