Bored

Commerce, GA

#6656 Apr 10, 2013
"Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Monday that she did not anticipate how complicated implementing the president's signature healthcare law would be."

Libtards starting to see what a mess Obamacare is going to create. Also shows airhead thinking in the demo party.

Do I feel for them? No, they deserve the same pain and frustration as the rest of us.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#6657 Apr 10, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>I believe him too. The only problem is do we believe in Obamas leadership abilities as Commander in Chief?
Yea, I remember how angry you Right Wingers were when that draft dodging cowardl Bush bankrupted the country to start three wars, killed 5,000 our troops, wounded 40,000 more, and stood on an aircraft carrier taunting others to "bring it on".

Man, you were soooooooo livid.

Oh wait ... No, you Right Wingers supported that lunacy, death and economic devastation.

Obama is bringing the troops home and actually killed the guy who caused 09/11 - yep, we can't have those successes.

Right Wing Wacko Planet - where history reaches back in time at lest 20 minutes.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#6658 Apr 10, 2013
Glorya wrote:
<quoted text>Panetta testified, Obama never called back once during the Benghazi attack, although being informed 28 minutes into the attack. He stated, they were aware the briefings made it to the White House, however, the POTUS never returned a call ONCE, even when notified about the death of our US ambassador ... Just a few hours later, he hopped AF1 to a Las Vegas celebrity/billionaire filled fundraiser, never making a statement. Then sent the UN ambassador on the media tour to explain the disastrous situation. How embarassing!... So, I have very little faith in his leadership abilities as Commander in Chief.
Yep, 3 Americans were killed in some God forsaken hellhole nation half a world away where there Right Wing anarchy reigns supreme - let's get that Obama for not preventing it;

3,000 Americans killed on American land, the World Trade Center destroyed, the Pentagon attacked - hey, don't blame Bush - stuff happens.

It's just a shame Right Wingers aren't intellectually capable of appreciating the entertainment value of their lunacy.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#6659 Apr 10, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>Funny thing, I never heard those statements. I heard they had plans to save social security so it would still be there many years from now. Now your great leader,Obama, wants to cut $1,000.00 a year from the S.S. retirement checks. Then he wants more taxes and new spending programs. He never mentioned cutting welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, free medical care, free phones, and all the other handouts to the "less fortunate". He also wants to regulate how much money you can put away for your retirement. How do you like that? Why should anyone have the right to tell you how much money you can put aside for your retirement? Why don't you liberals mind your own business and just take care of your own financial future instead of sticking your nose in everyone's business and trying to tell them how to live their lives? Keep your nose's out of my life would you please?
So why aren't you Right Wingers thrilled ?

Your candidates want to eliminate all Socialist Security and Socialist Medicare.

Right Wing Obama tries to help you and you still complain.

Damn, no matter how Right Wing Obama proves to be - no matter how many times he tries to emulate your God, "Bush the Failure", you just can't be happy.

Please, understand if you hate him for doing what you all want - it makes your criticism silly.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#6660 Apr 10, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy. Consumption of percentage of income. Some poor auto-mechanic making 35k and raising 2 kids will likely consume 100% of his income and be taxed on 100%.
Somebody else making 50 million would have a hard time consuming 100% of his income. So he gets taxed on 5% or whatever of his income.
Those who start the game with the lowest untaxed income wins.
The Straw Man argument King strikes again...

Another shining example of "clueless and uneducated", you don't know what you're talking about and the difference between income tax and a consumption tax. Apples and oranges.

1. Maybe some poor auto mechanic (ASSUME it's a man) making $35K shouldn't be having kids until he and his wife can afford them. Is the wife working? What's she make? Maybe the guy (or wife) needs to get a part time job.

2. Auto mechanic at $35K? Hardly. I know several that are almost 2x that amount.

3. In your "example", the guy is likely ALREADY consuming all of his income AND paying a 12-13% federal income tax rate. He's ALREADY paying the embedded taxes now in his consumption.

3. How many people make $50 million a year? You're hate of the wealthy is quite obvious, but there's not a lot of them out there for you to hate...

4. Under the FairTax, income is not taxed, doesn't matter one iota what someone makes, it's what they spend on new things. Once gain, you don't understand it.

5. "Poor" people will get a prebate that will "zero out" or, possibly, make their FairTax negative (wealth distribution again?)...Apparently you didn't research it as suggested. You don't understand it...

6. What do you care with the $50M guy does? If he invests the money in a new company, jobs are created. If he puts it in the bank, the bank loans it out, helping the community (unless it's for home loans to people that can't afford them).

7. The $50M guy likely pays more FairTax because he spends more. Isn't that fair (as you libs want)?

8. I won't even waste (much) time on those that are paid cash or "under the table" paying their fair share...

Your wealth envy and hating is so similar to the uninformed opinion dude? You the same person (again)?
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#6661 Apr 10, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>Your response is completely irrelevant to my point. You are talking about home sales for investment or leasing purposes or large scale business ventures. I was talking about Joe Smith down the street who sells his home to either upgrade or downsize and makes a profit on the sale. Mr Smith is the type of everyday person who is hurt by an increase in capital gains tax increases.

Bill in Dville, please correct me if wrong.
Wow - please don't opine on taxes unless you carry a lot of malpractice insurance.

As usual, completely wrong.

$250,000 Exclusion on the Sale of a Main Home

Individuals can exclude up to $250,000 in profit from the sale of a main home (or $500,000 for a married couple) as long as you have owned the home and lived in the home for a minimum of two years. Those two years do not need to be consecutive. In the 5 years prior to the sale of the house, you need to have lived in the house for at least 24 months in that 5-year period. In other words, the home must have been your principal residence.
You can use this 2-out-of-5 year rule to exclude your profits each time you sell or exchange your main home.

The truth about capital gains:

Let's ask Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist who has been proven accurate on every major issue in the past decade:

The Dubious Case For Privileging Capital Gains

I’ve had several people ask for a followup on my piece about David Frum and capital gains taxes — namely, what is the case for special treatment, and the case against?

Let me leave the distributional issues on one side; even if we don’t care (or neglect for the moment) the fact that low capital gains taxes overwhelmingly benefit a tiny minority, and leave us having to raise more taxes from everyone else, there are still good arguments against this preferential treatment.

So, the case for low rates on capital gains is that by taxing investment income as ordinary income, we effectively discourage savings and investment.

There is, however, no evidence that this effect is at all important.

Meanwhile, we create huge incentives to manipulate income to make it come out in the favored form. And this has real economic costs. Anrig:

... much more costly and wasteful than the tedious forms are the strategic energies engaged in manipulating income flowing to the wealthy in ways that minimize tax liabilities.

A recent IRS study showed that the primary source of capital gains income has shifted from stocks to “pass-through” entities (gains on assets sold by partnerships, S-corporations, and estates and trusts).
In 1999, corporate stock constituted 42 percent of total capital income while pass-through gains amounted to 25 percent; by 2007, those numbers had essentially reversed with pass-through income comprising 40 percent of the total while stocks accounted for 25 percent. Money managers who oversee the assets of private equity partnerships are among those who benefit from beneficial treatment of capital gains..

.. There is, I think, a kind of economistic myopia that applies here: we tend, all too often, to think in terms of a perfect, undistorted economy, and worry about anything that prevents all the marginal whatevers from being equalized. But in the real world, governments must collect taxes, and given that necessity, making that tax collection as simple and efficient as possible can easily trump more rarefied notions of efficiency.

In short: the low tax rate on capital gains is bad economics, even ignoring who it benefits.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#6662 Apr 10, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response is completely irrelevant to my point. You are talking about home sales for investment or leasing purposes or large scale business ventures. I was talking about Joe Smith down the street who sells his home to either upgrade or downsize and makes a profit on the sale. Mr Smith is the type of everyday person who is hurt by an increase in capital gains tax increases.
Bill in Dville, please correct me if wrong.
Aggie: subject to some rules (length of time lived in the house) and exclusions ($250K for an individual,$500K for a married couple) and some other goofy stuff, you are correct.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#6663 Apr 10, 2013
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
Aggie: subject to some rules (length of time lived in the house) and exclusions ($250K for an individual,$500K for a married couple) and some other goofy stuff, you are correct.
But only if you purchase another home within a certain time period.
If the new home costs less than the sale then I believe a capital gain must be reported in relation to the original investment.

So if you do not buy a new home and go and live with the kids, all of the capital gain is supposed to be reported.


Bored

Commerce, GA

#6664 Apr 10, 2013
Ha-ha-ha @ Krugman, a liberals love child.

Paul Krugman is a frustrated man a Cassandra whose wise warnings are regularly ignored by fellow economists, policy experts and political leaders alike. This past week has been especially difficult for the Nobel Prize winner, who like Sisyphus, must continue to push back against the ignorant fools who dismiss his debt-denying ways as reckless.

Mr. Krugman came on Morning Joe and declared that Washington neednt worry about its long-term debt problem until the moment that programs like Medicare begin melting down.

If we are worried about health care costs in the year 2025, why do we have to worry about it now? asked The New York Times columnist. It is a question regarding our looming entitlement crisis that is every bit as ridiculous as a healthy 50-year-old man asking why he should bother buying life insurance.

Paul Krugman justified this indefensible position by saying that since Washington politicians are too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time, they are incapable of running short-term deficits while worrying about long-term debt.

The Krugman solution? Simply ignore Americas long-term debt.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#6665 Apr 10, 2013
Bored wrote:
<quoted text>
But only if you purchase another home within a certain time period.
If the new home costs less than the sale then I believe a capital gain must be reported in relation to the original investment.
So if you do not buy a new home and go and live with the kids, all of the capital gain is supposed to be reported.
Nope. I believe that rule changed in the late 90s.

If memory serves correct, it (the capital gains exclusion) was available to those 55 and over and it was a lower amount. If you were under 55 and purchased a more expensive home, you could "delay" the capital gains impact.

The $250K/$500K exclusion applies to all, subject to certain rules.
Glorya

Conyers, GA

#6666 Apr 10, 2013
history is no les wrote:
<quoted text>
Off topic but here who cares. Libs hate to work and all the other nonsense you spout reminded me of just why the Republican Party is in such shambles. Compare it to the Catholic Church and it becomes obvious!. In a 2009 report by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life estimated that one in 10 adults in the U.S. was raised Catholic but has broken with the church. Its teachings on abortion, homosexuality, birth control and treatment of women were often cited as reasons.
Sounds just like the Republican Party, out of touch with the majority of its members. In the news today is a possible compromise between parties on a few gun laws. And the idiot wing of the Republican Party is already talking about filibuster. Considering a large majority of Americans wants something done its just another nail in the coffin of what was once the party of Lincoln. With nuts like you taking the way you do, its doomed.
Nuts diss other's spiritual beliefs. So, in this case ... you're the nut, and a witch.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#6667 Apr 10, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
I condensed your post for space and pertinent points.
1. The "who" is irrelevant to the discussion, the point is that a "Designer" is necessary. And I will ask you -can evolution be observed and replicated -to answer, no, macroevolution, which is the point of contention, cannot be observed and replicated - and what does evolution predict?
Too funny, you advocate that Intelligent Design is a theory worthy of scientific consideration, but state that the implied agent behind the Intelligent Design is irrelevant.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconcep...
"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example,(Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA220.h...
Science requires that observations can be replicated. The observations on which evolution is based, including comparative anatomy, genetics, and fossils, are replicable. In many cases, you can repeat the observations yourself.

Repeatable experiments, including experiments about mutations and natural selection in the laboratory and in the field, also support evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.h...
The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind. All theories are simplifications; they purposely neglect as many outside variables as they can. But these extraneous variables do affect predictions. For example, you can predict the future position of an orbiting planet, but your prediction will be off very slightly because you can not consider the effects of all the small bodies in the solar system. Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so specific predictions about what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical. It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics.

The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we would not have been able to say otherwise. These predictions do not have to be about things happening in the future. They can be "retrodictions" about things from the past that we have not found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort.

Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example (see link)...
Glorya

Conyers, GA

#6669 Apr 10, 2013
During Romney's run, a few things were said about Mormanism ... and many have mentioned Wright, Obama's pastor of 20+ years ... never have I heard ANY person on this forum talk negatively about Judiasm, Buddhism, Protestants, Hindus nor Catholics. As a practicing Catholic, you take very low blows. Why not call out the Kansas, Westboro Church? Or Wright? They're obviously hate filled?
ChicknButt

Decatur, GA

#6670 Apr 10, 2013
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
The Straw Man argument King strikes again...
Another shining example of "clueless and uneducated", you don't know what you're talking about and the difference between income tax and a consumption tax. Apples and oranges.
1. Maybe some poor auto mechanic (ASSUME it's a man) making $35K shouldn't be having kids until he and his wife can afford them. Is the wife working? What's she make? Maybe the guy (or wife) needs to get a part time job.
2. Auto mechanic at $35K? Hardly. I know several that are almost 2x that amount.
3. In your "example", the guy is likely ALREADY consuming all of his income AND paying a 12-13% federal income tax rate. He's ALREADY paying the embedded taxes now in his consumption.
3. How many people make $50 million a year? You're hate of the wealthy is quite obvious, but there's not a lot of them out there for you to hate...
4. Under the FairTax, income is not taxed, doesn't matter one iota what someone makes, it's what they spend on new things. Once gain, you don't understand it.
5. "Poor" people will get a prebate that will "zero out" or, possibly, make their FairTax negative (wealth distribution again?)...Apparently you didn't research it as suggested. You don't understand it...
6. What do you care with the $50M guy does? If he invests the money in a new company, jobs are created. If he puts it in the bank, the bank loans it out, helping the community (unless it's for home loans to people that can't afford them).
7. The $50M guy likely pays more FairTax because he spends more. Isn't that fair (as you libs want)?
8. I won't even waste (much) time on those that are paid cash or "under the table" paying their fair share...
Your wealth envy and hating is so similar to the uninformed opinion dude? You the same person (again)?
You points:
1. Has nothing to do with anything.
2. Has nothing to do with anything.
3. That was already understood.
4. That has nothing to do with anything. This is just an example.
5. I'm already aware of the prebate idea.
6. Lower taxes does not equate into jobs. That claim has been disproven over and over again. Nobody cares what the the guy does with his money as long as he's not screwing anybody else.
7. That's understood. You're OBVIOUSLY dodging the issue of percentage of income that I brought up. The whole plan is just another way for the wealthiest to dodge more taxes.
8. Nor will I waste time on that. It's a different issue completely.

Wealth envy and hating? Hardly. That's just a typical BS response those who oppose the wealthy getting preferential treatment over and at the expense of the middle-class and poor. It's an old and tired retort. You should probably remove it from your bag of retorts at some point. It's making you look old.

You know damn well that the "fair tax" is not equitable in the slightest. You like it because it suits your agenda. But Fair? Even you know it isn't.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#6671 Apr 10, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
3. "Once a molecule forms that is self replicating" Ah, but there's the rub. How did that first self replicating molecule come to be. Scientists have tried (and failed) for decades to create the "basic building blocks of life" under ideal laboratory conditions. And yet we are to believe random chance is the "primordial ooze" somehow managed it. Now THAT'S faith.

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA realized that the origin of life presented a huge obstacle to evolution proponents. His proposal was that earth was "seeded" by spores engineered on a distant planet. Now that is rich, he will not accept the concept of an Intelligent Designer of the universe and life on this planet, but he will accept the idea of an ALIEN "intelligently designing" spores that are then "planted" here. And by the way, who designed the intelligent alien? Infinite regress, anyone??
"And by the way, who designed the intelligent alien?"
So, which is it, are we to be concerned with who the Designer is, or is it irrelevant?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2...
Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.

Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).

This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:

[snip, see link]

Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages:(1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.

The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wchtershuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).

Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.

Something that no one has thought of yet.

see also...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/orig...

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#6672 Apr 10, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I read that earlier.
SLEAZY REPORTER: "I know!(light-bulb pops on over head!) Let's interview some die-hard Obama Haters and call it NEWS! The Republicans love it when do that! The more slanted the better! They like reading things they agree with."
There you go again with your double standard. YOU, of course, don't LIKE to read articles that support YOUR agenda. Laughable.

Again, you give passes to Obama. No cred.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#6673 Apr 10, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
4. Finally, the theory of evolution fails the very definition you used. It has "self consistency" "agreement with observations" and "usefulness" only when it is accepted on "faith". But this is not the topic for a banter back and forth on the merits of evolution vs intelligent design. But it would be intellectually honest to present both views to students with the pros and cons of both laid out. That would foster healthy discussion and debate. The theory of evolution is still just that, a THEORY in the most literal sense of the word -meaning "an unproven assumption" . To assert it as FACT is far more an act of FAITH than of science. And proponents of ID are more than willing for ID to be taught in the same fashion - as a theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.h...
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved.

All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

see also...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fac...

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution....
Glorya

Covington, GA

#6674 Apr 10, 2013
Glorya wrote:
During Romney's run, a few things were said about Mormanism ... and many have mentioned Wright, Obama's pastor of 20+ years ... never have I heard ANY person on this forum talk negatively about Judiasm, Buddhism, Protestants, Hindus nor Catholics. As a practicing Catholic, you take very low blows. Why not call out the Kansas, Westboro Church? Or Wright? They're obviously hate filled?

I should have said ... As a practicing Catholic, I see you stoop to low very blows .

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#6675 Apr 10, 2013
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
Aggie: subject to some rules (length of time lived in the house) and exclusions ($250K for an individual,$500K for a married couple) and some other goofy stuff, you are correct.
Ah, thank you for the clarification, I thought that was only for seniors - my bad.
ChicknButt

Decatur, GA

#6676 Apr 10, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU, of course, don't LIKE to read articles that support YOUR agenda.
I don't have an agenda, other than a desire to apply common-sense and equitable responsible solutions to the problems that affect our country and the people who live here.

I DON'T like to read things that support my "agenda" if they are just pure made-up crap and gibberish. It's just a waste of time and an exercise for the weak-minded.

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.

Darien Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
cornerstone christian correspondence school dip... (Apr '10) Mon donna 125
My family wants to relocate to a section 8 rent... (Jan '11) Mon HUH 9
Review: Fatous African Hair Braiding Feb 28 bridgettemonique03 1
Overloaded cord blamed for fire Feb 21 Sandy 1
What ever happened to Eric Herrod (Sep '13) Feb 19 HRod 5
Count finds 37 possible homeless people Feb 13 yirvine89 1
darien Nov '14 please 1

Flood Warning for McIntosh County was issued at March 03 at 9:56PM EST

Darien Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Darien People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:49 am PST

NFL 6:49AM
Dan Quinn wants Sean Weatherspoon back on Falcons
Bleacher Report 4:54 PM
What's Best Plan for Replacements for Falcons?
Bleacher Report 1:44 PM
Jaguars' Final Free-Agency Outlook and Predictions
NBC Sports 8:50 AM
Report: Falcons sign LB Nate Stupar to one-year deal
Bleacher Report11:44 AM
Falcons Release Photos of New Stadium Progress