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

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#53526 Aug 13, 2014
Jemima wrote:
<quoted text>
IF, If, if and sometimes, I know you have no interest in the truth. But the truth is when Bush took out Iraq's ,Saddam Hussein that's when the cards started to fall. The tyrant was all that keep the people in line, and Iran was just as scared of him as he was scared of them, now that's also gone. Its only just begun, and you can blame Obama as much as you like, the real culprit is again Bush.
You also gloss over the fact the people of this country have no interest in another war in the Middle East and the leaders along with the radicals in that part of the world factor in that to their actions. Again, that's the legacy of the Bush wars, we invaded, we conquered, we tired to mold a government to our liking, sunk billions of taxpayer dollars into the failed effort, and we leave broke and in debt.
We absolutely face the strongest threat from Muslim radicals in centuries, and its ALL our fault, well its really Bush's fault and Obama is complicit in the results. But if Bush had stayed the hell out of Iraq, none of this would be happening. Even Israel feels empowered to kill over 2,000 innocent citizens and wound and maim another 10,000 innocent citizens, including women and children as that part of the world explodes.
The west has interfered in the affairs of that area for centuries. After World War 2 the west reshaped the boundaries of Muslim countries, some were and still are no more than tribal areas, and now we see the results. We are on schedule to become the largest producer of oil in the world in 4 years. Its always been about the oil, now we have a little more than we ever imagined. The answer to all this is simple, stand back and let them all fight, then deal with the winners. Well, first we need to invade Texas and nationalize the oil wells, take oil out of the commodities market and cap big oils profits.
I thought about actually responding to this until I saw the idiocy rear its head again that Israel has no right to defend itself from the missile attacks from Gaza. It's called cause and effect - Hamas fires missiles, Israel defends itself. If Hamas stops firing missiles (from launch sites deliberately put next to schools, hospitals and shelters), Israel will stop taking the launch sites out.

But then we have the real gem:
"first we need to invade Texas and nationalize the oil wells, take oil out of the commodities market and cap big oils profits"

Well aren't you just the good little fascist.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#53527 Aug 13, 2014
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
How true. Like some of the folks in this discussion who call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom.
Fortunatley you can never be accused of running anything into the ground, meanwhile let's look at where this assessment orignated...

Holy Smokes, somebody is expressing their personal opinion on a political situation, so the question becomes is it a racist statement for a black man to label another black man an Uncle Tom, or is it only racist when a non-black man uses the term - now how do you know the race of posters on this forum.

Black congressman stands by comment that Clarence Thomas is an ‘Uncle Tom’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-poli...

Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) on Wednesday stood by his remark that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is an "Uncle Tom" and continued to suggest that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) opposition to President Obama is race-based.

In an interview with CNN, the Congressional Black Caucus member doubled down on his comments, first made over the weekend, that Thomas apparently "doesn’t like black people, he doesn’t like being black.” His comments were first reported by BuzzFeed.

"Well if you look at his decisions on the court, they have been adverse to the minority community, and the people I represent have a real issue with an African American not being sensitive to those issues," Thompson told Dana Bash.

Thompson cited Thomas siding with the conservative justices on the court -- of which he is a firm member -- upholding Voter ID laws and Michigan's ban on affirmative action. The court has also struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, which was first passed to prevent racial discrimination in elections.

"The people that I represent, for the most part, have a real issue with those decisions," Thompson said. "All those issues are very important and for someone in the court who's African American and not sensitive to that is a real problem."

Asked about McConnell's statement that his goal as GOP leader in the Senate was to make Obama a one-term president, Thompson wouldn't say flatly that it was racist but strongly pointed in that direction.

"I've never seen the venom put forth on another candidate or a president like I've seen with this president, and that's my opinion," Thompson said.

He added of McConnell: "I've never heard him say it to any other president."
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#53528 Aug 13, 2014
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
They make it sound so sinister there on Fox News, almost like there's some kind of CABAL or something.
Look at it like this:
Imagine if Boeing Aeronautics had reporters bugging the guys on the assembly lines, pestering their vendors who provide 3rd party parts, wandering around quizzing their managers all the time. Boeing would be quite annoyed at this. They have a PR department and if there are matters between the press and the company, they are funneled through the PR department.
Essentially the EPA is doing the same thing. They'd like to hear the results of the studies they pay for from the people they commission them from, rather than from the newspapers first.
Reporters feel it's their job to be as nosy as possible, and they're trying to do that. Fox News feels it's their job to make everything sound like the end of the world, and they're doing that. Right wing wacko's feel it's their job to suck up Fox's propaganda and spread the sinister word, and clearly - you're doing that.
Everything is as it should be.
Relax - or at least worry about something that matters - like how the American government now works for big oil, big coal, and Wall St. rather than the American Citizens.
Holy Smokes, you're gonna run that word into the ground, or is it a case of rubbing their nose in it. Not quite sure, but are you suggesting that Fox News reports are not entirely objective.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#53529 Aug 13, 2014
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunatley you can never be accused of running anything into the ground, meanwhile let's look at where this assessment orignated...
Holy Smokes, somebody is expressing their personal opinion on a political situation, so the question becomes is it a racist statement for a black man to label another black man an Uncle Tom, or is it only racist when a non-black man uses the term - now how do you know the race of posters on this forum.
Black congressman stands by comment that Clarence Thomas is an ‘Uncle Tom’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-poli...
Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) on Wednesday stood by his remark that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is an "Uncle Tom" and continued to suggest that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) opposition to President Obama is race-based.
In an interview with CNN, the Congressional Black Caucus member doubled down on his comments, first made over the weekend, that Thomas apparently "doesn’t like black people, he doesn’t like being black.” His comments were first reported by BuzzFeed.
"Well if you look at his decisions on the court, they have been adverse to the minority community, and the people I represent have a real issue with an African American not being sensitive to those issues," Thompson told Dana Bash.
Thompson cited Thomas siding with the conservative justices on the court -- of which he is a firm member -- upholding Voter ID laws and Michigan's ban on affirmative action. The court has also struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, which was first passed to prevent racial discrimination in elections.
"The people that I represent, for the most part, have a real issue with those decisions," Thompson said. "All those issues are very important and for someone in the court who's African American and not sensitive to that is a real problem."
Asked about McConnell's statement that his goal as GOP leader in the Senate was to make Obama a one-term president, Thompson wouldn't say flatly that it was racist but strongly pointed in that direction.
"I've never seen the venom put forth on another candidate or a president like I've seen with this president, and that's my opinion," Thompson said.
He added of McConnell: "I've never heard him say it to any other president."
What a complete load of bilge trying to justify using what all know to be a deeply offensive term. That was NOT "somebody" "expressing their personal opinion on a political situation" it was a personal attack at a personal and disgusting level. Talk about your "dog whistles". Calling a conservative black man an "Uncle Tom" is the Left's first line of defense in attempting to ignore whatever factual grounds that person may have for a position. Just call him an "Uncle Tom" and pretend that that negates any truth to his position.

Got a problem with Clarence Thomas' POSITIONS - fine, more power to you - argue THE POSITIONS. Taking the cheap shot is nothing more than saying you CAN'T intelligently argue against him.

Thompson thinks Thomas should be "sensitive" to certain issues BECAUSE he is black - bull crap - that is the problem with the Left - everything is supposed to be looked at through the prism of gender/race/sexual orientation/whatever identity. A Supreme Court Justice should absolutely NOT consider ANY of those things. A Justice's ONLY consideration should be "does this violate the Constitution" - PERIOD. That is their job. Not to be activists. The legislature is where redress for wrongs can (and SOMETIMES should) be considered.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#53530 Aug 13, 2014
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy Smokes, you're gonna run that word into the ground, or is it a case of rubbing their nose in it. Not quite sure, but are you suggesting that Fox News reports are not entirely objective.
Oh, look. Another Leftie that doesn't have the intelligence to look beyond the Fox News link and see that it was an Associated Press article that referenced complaints from:

"the Society of Professional Journalists, the Society of Environmental Journalists, Investigative Reporters and Editors, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Society for Conservation Biology, American Geophysical Union and the Union of Concerned Scientists."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/grou...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/55851750/ns/politic...
Sick Man Freud

Blairsville, GA

#53531 Aug 13, 2014
rename wrote:
<quoted text>
Well heck dummy... Any ole dummy like yerself can find any dummy link by his dummy self....,
And dummy Obamas gubmint bears the dummy 537 million dummy gubmint dollars that dummy Solyndra got and dummy sick man is sick from getting his dummy gonads crunched ......
And remember dummy ,,,, you have my two dummy fingers to use anytime dummy....,
Uh, once again, slow poke, no one has ever insinuated that the Obama administration did not fund Solyndra. No one has ever suggested Solyndra was not a failure. What has been said and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Bush administration courted Solyndra and planned to fund the upstart with federal money. Whether Solyndra eventually got technically funded though a different program is no matter. Fact is, the Bush administration planned to fund Solyndra. So much for blaming it all on Obama. You know, monkey see, monkey do.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#53533 Aug 13, 2014
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
240998,229955,221979,240794,23 6506,232474
What a complete load of bilge trying to justify using what all know to be a deeply offensive term. That was NOT "somebody" "expressing their personal opinion on a political situation" it was a personal attack at a personal and disgusting level. Talk about your "dog whistles". Calling a conservative black man an "Uncle Tom" is the Left's first line of defense in attempting to ignore whatever factual grounds that person may have for a position. Just call him an "Uncle Tom" and pretend that that negates any truth to his position.
Got a problem with Clarence Thomas' POSITIONS - fine, more power to you - argue THE POSITIONS. Taking the cheap shot is nothing more than saying you CAN'T intelligently argue against him.
Thompson thinks Thomas should be "sensitive" to certain issues BECAUSE he is black - bull crap - that is the problem with the Left - everything is supposed to be looked at through the prism of gender/race/sexual orientation/whatever identity. A Supreme Court Justice should absolutely NOT consider ANY of those things. A Justice's ONLY consideration should be "does this violate the Constitution" - PERIOD. That is their job. Not to be activists. The legislature is where redress for wrongs can (and SOMETIMES should) be considered.
Oh too funny, yep we've seen what the Supreme Court considers when rendering an opinion, let's see, our system of justice is built on precedents until that gets in the way of electing Presidents, than the Court will issue a One Time Only Not To Be Used As Precedent ruling to accomplish a political goal.

Yep, I sure do think that a black man from Mississippi can offer a personal opinion on a Supreme Court Justice. And yes personal political beliefs will influence what we seek out to support our opinions, Supreme Court Justices show us this all the time.

You're the joke if you think otherwise.
silverfox

Nashville, GA

#53534 Aug 13, 2014
Chopper Read wrote:
<quoted text>Does that mean you are opposed to the US trying to help prevent the genocide of these people?
Ive made my point several times, with many links & posts, from the beginning when Obama drew & then erased rhe red line with Syria (we knew hell on earth would be unleashed onto those people) When Boko Haram kidnapped the Christian schoolgirls, forcing them to be siuicide bombers..... I.support STRICT US border patrol, supported by many, many links. We conservatives shared hundreds of links.... Israel/HAMAS - ISIS/IRAQ ......Obama prefers genocide- I prefer SAVING the innocent in Iraq. After 170,000 Syrians were brtually murdered, should you ask a foolish question?

Keep up, read links, you're behind. So much as happened, I.don't understand your.point.
ChicknButt

Norcross, GA

#53536 Aug 13, 2014
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please compare apples to apples. Boeing is a private company, the EPA is a government agency funded by OUR tax money issuing regulations that have the potential to seriously harm private industry if their policies are based on ideological positions and NOT factual information. The public that both funds and is affected by those regulations has a RIGHT to know on what basis those advisors make their recommendations.
And once again we have the bleating over "Fox News" while completing ignoring the fact that the groups demanding the transparency Obama promised included:
"the Society of Professional Journalists, the Society of Environmental Journalists, Investigative Reporters and Editors, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Society for Conservation Biology, American Geophysical Union and the Union of Concerned Scientists"
Yes, yes, yes....

I predicted as I was writing it that some OCD contrarian would latch onto that minor and unimportant point, completely missing the big picture that I plainly explained.

The point is - people have jobs to do. Let them do it. If you want a statement or have a question, fine- the agency can answer it through the proper channels. Let the people doing the grunt work do their jobs.
ChicknButt

Norcross, GA

#53537 Aug 13, 2014
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy Smokes, you're gonna run that word into the ground, or is it a case of rubbing their nose in it.
Yes.
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite sure, but are you suggesting that Fox News reports are not entirely objective.
Shocking thought, I know. However, there is a BIT of evidence that it might be true.
Chopper Read

Fitzgerald, GA

#53538 Aug 13, 2014
silverfox wrote:
<quoted text>
Ive made my point several times, with many links & posts, from the beginning when Obama drew & then erased rhe red line with Syria (we knew hell on earth would be unleashed onto those people) When Boko Haram kidnapped the Christian schoolgirls, forcing them to be siuicide bombers..... I.support STRICT US border patrol, supported by many, many links. We conservatives shared hundreds of links.... Israel/HAMAS - ISIS/IRAQ ......Obama prefers genocide- I prefer SAVING the innocent in Iraq. After 170,000 Syrians were brtually murdered, should you ask a foolish question?
Keep up, read links, you're behind. So much as happened, I.don't understand your.point.
As much as I may sometimes enjoy this forum, I do not depend on its links as my primary news source. I still believe that Obama made the correct choice about arming Syrian rebels. Any arms that we would have sent them would probably be in the possession of ISIS by now.
Chopper Read

Fitzgerald, GA

#53539 Aug 13, 2014
@ NOT arming Syrian rebels ^^^^^
Sick Man Freud

Blairsville, GA

#53540 Aug 13, 2014
rename wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you did insinuate it was Bushs fault by omission of Obamas name in your original post dummy.....and being ignorant of which act and which section the money was loaned from....
By implication you thought it was the same act considered under the Bush admin ....,
Fact remains Solyndra had to re-qualify under the new act passed under Libroids and section 1705,,, another freeby by Libroids.....
The fact remains there were 14 companies considered under the act the Repubs passed and Solyndra was one of them.... Any of those companies, if chosen, would qualify under section 1703 which required fees refunded to the gubmint.....
The fact remains that Libroids passed another act that companies qualify under section 1705 that negated companies paying any fee rebates back to gubmint, which would total over 3 billion dollars extra expense to tax payers.....
The fact remains Obama admin loaned the money and the tax payers lost over 300 million.....
Fact remains your trying to lay a dead horse in the wrong neighborhood.....
Just like Obama is trying to lay the blame on the Bush admin for the present problems in Iraq..,.,
Obama owns the present problems in Iraq as he owns Solyndra....
Yap, yap, yap...

Bush started the process of loaning Solyndra money. Own it. Admit it. Accept it. It's fact.

I think the squirrels around your tar-paper shack are smarter than you...
ChicknButt

Norcross, GA

#53542 Aug 13, 2014
If we counted up the number of absolute truth, real-world, really-really happened facts that the wacko's on this site won't admit to, we'd be in the 10's of thousands.

They literally live in their own little made-up universe.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#53545 Aug 13, 2014
Geez, this isn't at all as it's been protrayed in this forum...

Obama slams reporter's right-wing adopted talking point as bogus
by Egberto Willies
TUE AUG 12, 2014 AT 08:41 AM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/12/1320...

...This weekend a lazy, seemingly gullible reporter asked President Obama if he regretted not leaving troops in Iraq. That is a question based on Republican talking points and not journalistic inquiry. The reporter should have known that the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was signed by President Bush which specifically said all combat troops would leave Iraq in December of 2011. President Obama attempted to negotiate keeping more soldiers in Iraq but could not come to an agreement with the Iraqi government who wanted the soldiers out.

"What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice—which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.

So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were—a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.

Having said all that, if in fact the Iraqi government behaved the way it did over the last five, six years, where it failed to pass legislation that would reincorporate Sunnis and give them a sense of ownership; if it had targeted certain Sunni leaders and jailed them; if it had alienated some of the Sunni tribes that we had brought back in during the so-called Awakening that helped us turn the tide in 2006—if they had done all those things and we had had troops there, the country wouldn’t be holding together either. The only difference would be we’d have a bunch of troops on the ground that would be vulnerable. And however many troops we had, we would have to now be reinforcing, I’d have to be protecting them, and we’d have a much bigger job. And probably, we would end up having to go up again in terms of the number of grounds troops to make sure that those forces were not vulnerable.

So that entire analysis is bogus and is wrong. But it gets frequently peddled around here by folks who oftentimes are trying to defend previous policies that they themselves made."

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#53546 Aug 13, 2014
Sick Man Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, once again, slow poke, no one has ever insinuated that the Obama administration did not fund Solyndra. No one has ever suggested Solyndra was not a failure. What has been said and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Bush administration courted Solyndra and planned to fund the upstart with federal money. Whether Solyndra eventually got technically funded though a different program is no matter. Fact is, the Bush administration planned to fund Solyndra. So much for blaming it all on Obama. You know, monkey see, monkey do.
Now this is rich, "the Bush administration courted Solyndra" - one would think the Left would be happy that the Bush administration was trying to encourage "green energy" as it was under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that was "designed to help support U.S. companies developing “a new or significantly improved technology that is NOT a commercial technology,” It was a self-pay credit subsidy program, meaning the companies receiving the loan would have to pay the government a fee “equal to the present value of estimated payments the government would make in the event of a default.”

By January of 2009, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee released an email in which Bush Energy official Lachlan Seward wrote, "After canvassing the [Energy Department's credit] committee it was the unanimous decision not to engage in further discussions with Solyndra at this time."

So yes, the Bush administration HAD planned on funding Solyndra, but upon further investigation decided it was not the best decision. So sorry, but the Obama administration still gets to take ALL THE CREDIT that they were so happy to claim at the "ribbon cutting".

Joe Biden: "And I'm really happy, along with the Secretary, to announce today that we've closed a $535 million loan guarantee for Solyndra, more than half a billion dollars. This is the first in what the Secretary is going to be announcing the Department of Energy will be making available for more than $30 billion in loan guarantees the Recovery Act is providing and will provide to American companies that are leading the way to a new, clean energy future."

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#53549 Aug 13, 2014
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh too funny, yep we've seen what the Supreme Court considers when rendering an opinion, let's see, our system of justice is built on precedents until that gets in the way of electing Presidents, than the Court will issue a One Time Only Not To Be Used As Precedent ruling to accomplish a political goal.
Yep, I sure do think that a black man from Mississippi can offer a personal opinion on a Supreme Court Justice. And yes personal political beliefs will influence what we seek out to support our opinions, Supreme Court Justices show us this all the time.
You're the joke if you think otherwise.
For the umpteenth time, Gore got the recount he ASKED for, and studies by various news entities show that ANOTHER recount would have made no difference. You really need to quit butting that stump..

Anyone can offer a personal opinion on anything - but make it an intelligent opinion, not an ad hominem attack that advances your position NOT AT ALL and does nothing but try to malign the other party.

And, surprise, you missed that big fat point staring you in the face - personal political beliefs have no place in Supreme Court decisions - that is how we got what even leftist judges like Ruth Bader Ginsberg admits was "bad law" in the Roe v Wade decision. Supreme Court decisions SHOULD be based on constitutionality - period. When they are not, you get convoluted rulings like the one that approved Obamacare - yes, it is a tax, but it isn't a tax. What did Roberts do, take a course in the Bill Clinton school of "it depends on what the definition of "is" is."

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#53551 Aug 13, 2014
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, yes, yes....
I predicted as I was writing it that some OCD contrarian would latch onto that minor and unimportant point, completely missing the big picture that I plainly explained.
The point is - people have jobs to do. Let them do it. If you want a statement or have a question, fine- the agency can answer it through the proper channels. Let the people doing the grunt work do their jobs.
"minor and unimportant point" - private company vs government agency is hardly minor

To quote D'ville Bill - "oh, the irony" of you talking about "missing the big picture" when it blew right over your head. The public has an ABSOLUTE right to know on what grounds a regulatory agency issues decrees that adversely affect the day to day running of a business - or in this case results in the CLOSING of businesses (coal facilities in GA come to mind)- for no factually based good reason, but merely on ideological grounds.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#53552 Aug 13, 2014
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
Shocking thought, I know. However, there is a BIT of evidence that it might be true.
And still ignoring that ABC and NBC ran the exact same Associated Press piece.
Jemima

Carnesville, GA

#53553 Aug 13, 2014
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is amazing how actually watching the link puts things in a different perspective than what you wrote, not that I am surprised. Was Smith's comment harsh, yes ( and he has already apologized for it) but I agree with it completely and he was putting it in the perspective of William's children who he left behind. Suicide is an act of extreme selfishness, it takes the individual out of their pain and hands it over to all those who loved them. I have known families devastated by the pain of a loved one's suicide. I am not denying the pain the individual himself is going through, but no matter how they rationalize that their family "will be better off without me" (and I have heard that from someone who had contemplated suicide) it is a lie to make it easier for THEM, not their families. I have all the sympathy in the world for someone who is in such a dark place that they think suicide is the only answer, but I have MORE sympathy for the family who has to pick up the pieces after their loved one actually does it.
Now I know why you watch FNC and dislike when little children take away some of your tax money, just to survive. Poor the people who also take your tax money to survive are also on your list, and now you add to that list people with disease. Its ok that Israel uses your tax money to kill thousands of children and women. Its ok for Boeing to make lots of profits from government contracts paid for with your tax money,.

Smith is a arrogant ass, who was just caught being Smith driving drunk a week or so ago. Now he looks even more like an ass with his Williams comment. Mental Illness is a disease, you know what a disease is don't you?!?!? Like cancer, diabetes, heart disease and a host of other aliments that kill people every day!!! The disease called mental illness killed Robin Williams, can you understand that fact?.

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
Speed Trap along the I-95 corridor in Mcintosh ... (Nov '15) Aug 22 Carlo c 11
pillpoppers (Nov '10) Aug 16 sick 11
Local cop rides with 1%MC club (Sep '13) Aug 15 Anonymous 15
What Y'all think of District Attorney Jackie Jo... (Nov '11) Aug 12 Justice for Jerrod 102
Part 12 Guy Heinze Jr. (May '10) Aug 10 Guilty 1,203
Family doctor recommendation in or around Bruns... Aug 8 NewToGA 1
What McIntosh/Darien does not want you to know (May '13) Jul '16 Nteri 26

Brunswick Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brunswick Mortgages