Did you vote today?

Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,407 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Redd

Little Rock, AR

#20877 Jan 18, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Most definitely. The entire system is filled with people stealing the tax payers money on both sides. Washington is filled with greed on both sides.
Reality, it's refreshing to see a reasonable mind representing another side of Republican thinking...and although I often disagree, I do agree there needs to be massive change in our Country..from both sides of the aisle. I'm afraid it's not going to happen though, at least not anytime soon.

Unfortunately when I started this thread I never imagined the true fundamental and often, almost violent differences between our political parties, I had thought that we, as Americans, were all in the same boat when it came to our mutual welfare, able to settle our opposing views in a heated but constructive manner. I no longer see it that way.

In retrospect I wish I had never embarked on this sad journey, never discovered Topix, it is making me less tolerant...more hateful...and I think it's time for me to exit, to leave this hate filled pile of shit and focus on the positive.

To Barney, keep up the good fight, Old Army, sorry if I was ass at times.
Old Army

Bee Branch, AR

#20878 Jan 18, 2013
Redd wrote:
<quoted text>
Reality, it's refreshing to see a reasonable mind representing another side of Republican thinking...and although I often disagree, I do agree there needs to be massive change in our Country..from both sides of the aisle. I'm afraid it's not going to happen though, at least not anytime soon.
Unfortunately when I started this thread I never imagined the true fundamental and often, almost violent differences between our political parties, I had thought that we, as Americans, were all in the same boat when it came to our mutual welfare, able to settle our opposing views in a heated but constructive manner. I no longer see it that way.
In retrospect I wish I had never embarked on this sad journey, never discovered Topix, it is making me less tolerant...more hateful...and I think it's time for me to exit, to leave this hate filled pile of shit and focus on the positive.
To Barney, keep up the good fight, Old Army, sorry if I was ass at times.
Its all good Redd.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#20879 Jan 18, 2013
Pass this on to your County Sheriffs, and have them pass it on to any other country Sheriffs they know from Liberal states that have the backbone to stand up for "No gun control laws or confiscations"

Did you know that no matter what gun control laws are passed by the federal government, they can only be enforced in your area if your county sheriff allows them to be.

Most people, including politicians fail to realize that the ultimate legal authorities in the land are the county sheriffs. This was established from the time of the Founding Fathers and upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1997 case of Printz v. United States. Initially, the case was Mack v. United States, but by the time it reached the Supreme Court it was renamed.

The case involved new federal regulations involved with the Brady Bill and gun control. FBI agents went around to the various county sheriffs and demanded that they follow the new federal guidelines. Then Graham County (AZ) Sheriff Richard Mack and several others saw the Brady Bill as being unconstitutional and refused to impose the new federal guidelines. Part of their defense was that the county sheriff was the supreme law enforcement officer over their county and that the federal government could not supersede their legal authority.

In the court’s decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:

“... The great innovation of this design was that ‘our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other’”–“a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.”(P.920)

Justice Scalia then quoted the man considered to be the Father of the US Constitution, President James Madison, when he wrote in the decision:

“[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.

Scalia then referred to Gregory, 501 US at 458 when he wrote:

“This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty:‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’...”

Referring once again to President Madison, Scalia wrote:

“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”(P. 922).

In other words, the county sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county and he does not have to bow to the tyranny of the federal government if he deems such actions to be unconstitutional or unlawful. In essence, the county sheriff has more legal authority within his county than the governor or the state or even the president of the United States.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#20880 Jan 18, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
It's an opinion of years of observation and life experience. You do realize that the majority of results of scientific studies are directly in line with preformed opinions of those funding the study don't you? Those who fund studies mostly have a result they believe to be true. They set out to find "scientists" to perform the study to get each scientits hypothesis of the outcome. Rarely does the scientific grant go to those scientist's whos hypothesis is contradictory to what the person or group that is funding the study already believes. I'm not saying it's rigged but the scientist know who they are working for and who is paying the bills. Whether you admit it or not you realize what I'm saying is true.
Of course they are, you think someone is going to say, here is a handful of money go figure something out?

Not that had a thing to do with my post or why I ask.

Pardon me if I am wrong, it would appear you are trying to second guess me again with that speech on research funding.
Law N Order

Jonesboro, AR

#20881 Jan 18, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they are, you think someone is going to say, here is a handful of money go figure something out?
Not that had a thing to do with my post or why I ask.
Pardon me if I am wrong, it would appear you are trying to second guess me again with that speech on research funding.
You are pardoned
Reality Check

United States

#20882 Jan 18, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they are, you think someone is going to say, here is a handful of money go figure something out?
Not that had a thing to do with my post or why I ask.
Pardon me if I am wrong, it would appear you are trying to second guess me again with that speech on research funding.
If you realize that, do you really think that even half of the results are legit? Do you think the scientist don't want any more money for further studies? Do you think that doesn't factor into the final results given to the money donor who already has a preformed opinion and selected a group of scientists that said they believed the results would indeed line up with his/her preformed opinion? Not getting the results the money donor wanted would be the same as an employee failing at their job. They might not get to keep their job if the employer found out exactly how the employee failed so some employees decide to try to lie for the sake of keeping their job. Scientist are no different. I know liberals and the science community are close so this probably seems absurd to you.
Guess who

Mountain Home, AR

#20883 Jan 19, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
If you realize that, do you really think that even half of the results are legit? Do you think the scientist don't want any more money for further studies? Do you think that doesn't factor into the final results given to the money donor who already has a preformed opinion and selected a group of scientists that said they believed the results would indeed line up with his/her preformed opinion? Not getting the results the money donor wanted would be the same as an employee failing at their job. They might not get to keep their job if the employer found out exactly how the employee failed so some employees decide to try to lie for the sake of keeping their job. Scientist are no different. I know liberals and the science community are close so this probably seems absurd to you.
Many local goverment,s have employed a full time grant writer in order to obtain more so called free goverment money. Liberal commie socialist parasite people have morphed this whole country from a once productive Republic to a parasitic deep in debt Demopendacy.
Reality Check

Camden, AR

#20887 Jan 19, 2013
Redd wrote:
<quoted text>
Reality, it's refreshing to see a reasonable mind representing another side of Republican thinking...and although I often disagree, I do agree there needs to be massive change in our Country..from both sides of the aisle. I'm afraid it's not going to happen though, at least not anytime soon.
Unfortunately when I started this thread I never imagined the true fundamental and often, almost violent differences between our political parties, I had thought that we, as Americans, were all in the same boat when it came to our mutual welfare, able to settle our opposing views in a heated but constructive manner. I no longer see it that way.
In retrospect I wish I had never embarked on this sad journey, never discovered Topix, it is making me less tolerant...more hateful...and I think it's time for me to exit, to leave this hate filled pile of shit and focus on the positive.
To Barney, keep up the good fight, Old Army, sorry if I was ass at times.
Well said and I wish you well. All I wish for this nation is a government that will protect us from outside invasion, tax responsibly, spend responsibly, and keep us a truly free people. We don't have that in today's America. I believe that all men and women should be free to make their own decisions in life. I also believe that a person should have to live with the consequences of their decisions (good or bad). I believe that Americans should be willing to help their fellow citizens who have had unforseen circumstances fall on them. I also believe that Americans should help their fellow citizens that have made poor choices in life and have exhausted all means of helping themselves before any help is given. That help SHOULD NOT BE FINANCIAL. We as Americans should deny help to those unwilling to help themselves. I believe America should deny help to any other nation that is Anti-American or any country whos citizens are not willing to put their lives on the line and fight for their own freedoms. I believe our soldiers should be seen as heros and should be given everything they need emotionally and financially from the people (not the government) for their sacrifice and service to this great nation. We owe that to them. I believe that our elected officials should be as it was in our founding where people are nominated by their fellow citizens. They are nominated because citizens see something in the candidate that they want to follow and not because the candidate seeks the position and is able to promote themselves. Candidates that are nominated accept out of duty for their country, not because of greed for wealth and power as we see now. I just want an America that is truly free and not shackled by politicians who are able to distort the truth so that they prosper and gain power that can and is used to opress those who elected them. I am a very optimistic person but I don't see this America ever coming to fruition. It's a pipe dream.
guest

United States

#20888 Jan 19, 2013
Wait? I thought the President said the War on Terror was over? BARNEYII said the President's policy in Afghanistan was about "accomplishing a mission."

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/19...

"Al-Qaida-linked militants claimed Friday that they were holding two American hostages and would exchange them for two people being held in the United States — the blind sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and Aafie Siddiqque a 40-year-old Pakistani neuroscientist and mother of three, who was convicted of attacking U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan."

The left-wing faux news sites pulled a BARNEYII and ironically left this quote from Sec. of State Hillary Clinton in their "coverage" of the story.

"The perpetrators are the terrorists. They are the ones who have assaulted this facility, have taken hostage Algerians and others from around the world as they were going about their daily business," she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/19/clint...

You see, Barn, you always demand proof of your lies and misinformation and, like I said, the proof is in the reality that you deny and it's screeming in your posts.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#20890 Jan 19, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
If you realize that, do you really think that even half of the results are legit? Do you think the scientist don't want any more money for further studies? Do you think that doesn't factor into the final results given to the money donor who already has a preformed opinion and selected a group of scientists that said they believed the results would indeed line up with his/her preformed opinion? Not getting the results the money donor wanted would be the same as an employee failing at their job. They might not get to keep their job if the employer found out exactly how the employee failed so some employees decide to try to lie for the sake of keeping their job. Scientist are no different. I know liberals and the science community are close so this probably seems absurd to you.
I do not find that "absurd" at all, it is being motivated by greed, and greed is as old as time. The science community is no different from any other entity, they have some unethical personell.

Yes I do believe "even half of the results are legit". I also believe that there is people, Scientist included, that are not beyond perpetrating a scam for financial gain.

Do you really think those Scientists who habitually release incorrect studies will be hired for main stream research?

Would you hire someone with that reputation, probably not, unless you are running a scam.

What I do find "absurd" is that you stereotype the entire science community and other groups as well due to the actions of a few.
guest

United States

#20891 Jan 19, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not find that "absurd" at all, it is being motivated by greed, and greed is as old as time. The science community is no different from any other entity, they have some unethical personell.
Yes I do believe "even half of the results are legit". I also believe that there is people, Scientist included, that are not beyond perpetrating a scam for financial gain.
Do you really think those Scientists who habitually release incorrect studies will be hired for main stream research?
Would you hire someone with that reputation, probably not, unless you are running a scam.
What I do find "absurd" is that you stereotype the entire science community and other groups as well due to the actions of a few.
"The science community is no different from any other entity, they have some unethical personell."

-See Global Warming

"Do you really think those Scientists who habitually release incorrect studies will be hired for main stream research?"

-See Global Warming

"What I do find "absurd" is that you stereotype the entire science community and other groups as well due to the actions of a few."

-See a mirror
Reality Check

Camden, AR

#20892 Jan 19, 2013
guest wrote:
Wait? I thought the President said the War on Terror was over? BARNEYII said the President's policy in Afghanistan was about "accomplishing a mission."
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/19...
"Al-Qaida-linked militants claimed Friday that they were holding two American hostages and would exchange them for two people being held in the United States — the blind sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and Aafie Siddiqque a 40-year-old Pakistani neuroscientist and mother of three, who was convicted of attacking U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan."
The left-wing faux news sites pulled a BARNEYII and ironically left this quote from Sec. of State Hillary Clinton in their "coverage" of the story.
"The perpetrators are the terrorists. They are the ones who have assaulted this facility, have taken hostage Algerians and others from around the world as they were going about their daily business," she said.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/19/clint...
You see, Barn, you always demand proof of your lies and misinformation and, like I said, the proof is in the reality that you deny and it's screeming in your posts.
We'll just have to wait and see what new reality Barney comes up with next.
Reality Check

Camden, AR

#20893 Jan 19, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not find that "absurd" at all, it is being motivated by greed, and greed is as old as time. The science community is no different from any other entity, they have some unethical personell.
Yes I do believe "even half of the results are legit". I also believe that there is people, Scientist included, that are not beyond perpetrating a scam for financial gain.
Do you really think those Scientists who habitually release incorrect studies will be hired for main stream research?
Would you hire someone with that reputation, probably not, unless you are running a scam.
What I do find "absurd" is that you stereotype the entire science community and other groups as well due to the actions of a few.
I simply realize that what we see happening around us doesn't, and hasn't for some time, match what we hear from the "in the know" communities such as government, science, and certianly media. Never more than today has the saying "believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see" been more true. What I hear comming down from Washington is that studies show this or studies show that so here is our newest and latest policy to fix it. What I see around me is a completely different scenario in which the enacting of the policy set to fix the problem only makes the problem worse and in most cases creates new problems. If you could cite me real world situations that you know and have seen for yourself right here where you live then we could have a serious debate about who is right and who is wrong. All you do is look at the CBO or one of your many left wing sites to get all of your information and you take it for the truth lock stock and barrell. You don't personally know one single person who's information you are taking as 100% correct. You simply regurgitate it and sit back proudly as if it came from your personal experience. Your exactly like that commercial where the woman tells the guy that "they can't put anything on the internet that isn't true". The guy asks "where did you hear that?". They simultaneously respond "On the internet" as her "French model" date she met on the internet who looks like anything but a model walks up and says "BONJOUR". The oblivious girl and her anything but a model date walk off to their night of bliss. You are that woman with your digitally set point of view and you will continually look out of touch until you decide to look around for yourself and see what's going on.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#20894 Jan 19, 2013
guest wrote:
Wait? I thought the President said the War on Terror was over? BARNEYII said the President's policy in Afghanistan was about "accomplishing a mission."
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/19...
"Al-Qaida-linked militants claimed Friday that they were holding two American hostages and would exchange them for two people being held in the United States — the blind sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and Aafie Siddiqque a 40-year-old Pakistani neuroscientist and mother of three, who was convicted of attacking U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan."
The left-wing faux news sites pulled a BARNEYII and ironically left this quote from Sec. of State Hillary Clinton in their "coverage" of the story.
"The perpetrators are the terrorists. They are the ones who have assaulted this facility, have taken hostage Algerians and others from around the world as they were going about their daily business," she said.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/19/clint...
You see, Barn, you always demand proof of your lies and misinformation and, like I said, the proof is in the reality that you deny and it's screeming in your posts.
You have some serious comprehension issues, to the point that I believe you must have a learning disability

No, I demanded you provide proof for the misinformation you post religiously, or for you to prove me wrong, on what you refer to as lies, on what I posted.

The best I recall, you have NEVER ACCEPTED the invitation to prove me wrong, and IM still waiting. You can do it so you just attack the messenger.

"I thought the President said the War on Terror was over"

What in the Hell ever give you that idea.

Another thing, if the proof is in the reality that I deny, why does giving an example of that seem to escape you on a permanent bases.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#20895 Jan 19, 2013
That should have read;

You can not do it, so you just attack the messenger.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#20896 Jan 19, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
We'll just have to wait and see what new reality Barney comes up with next.
Chance are, no matter how elementary it might be, it will be way over your two imbeciles heads.


Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#20897 Jan 19, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>"The science community is no different from any other entity, they have some unethical personell."
-See Global Warming
"Do you really think those Scientists who habitually release incorrect studies will be hired for main stream research?"
-See Global Warming
"What I do find "absurd" is that you stereotype the entire science community and other groups as well due to the actions of a few."
-See a mirror
How much research have you done on global warming, what is your credentials on global warning, Are you a PHD, an experienced scientist.

If you are none of those just how do know global warming is a hoax?


Let me guess,

Fox news told Bubba it was, so it has to be true.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#20898 Jan 19, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply realize that what we see happening around us doesn't, and hasn't for some time, match what we hear from the "in the know" communities such as government, science, and certianly media. Never more than today has the saying "believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see" been more true. What I hear comming down from Washington is that studies show this or studies show that so here is our newest and latest policy to fix it. What I see around me is a completely different scenario in which the enacting of the policy set to fix the problem only makes the problem worse and in most cases creates new problems. If you could cite me real world situations that you know and have seen for yourself right here where you live then we could have a serious debate about who is right and who is wrong. All you do is look at the CBO or one of your many left wing sites to get all of your information and you take it for the truth lock stock and barrell. You don't personally know one single person who's information you are taking as 100% correct. You simply regurgitate it and sit back proudly as if it came from your personal experience. Your exactly like that commercial where the woman tells the guy that "they can't put anything on the internet that isn't true". The guy asks "where did you hear that?". They simultaneously respond "On the internet" as her "French model" date she met on the internet who looks like anything but a model walks up and says "BONJOUR". The oblivious girl and her anything but a model date walk off to their night of bliss. You are that woman with your digitally set point of view and you will continually look out of touch until you decide to look around for yourself and see what's going on.
You spend way to much time, listing perceived problems, of those who do not tote the same line as you.

Have you ever stop to think you are not perfect, the world will still turn, if things are different from your ideal world.

What is good for you may be less advantageous for someone else.

Learn to live with diversity, or be left farther behind than you already have.
Old Army

Bee Branch, AR

#20899 Jan 19, 2013
As usual, Barney resorts to name calling and blaming Fox News. Redd, he is "keeping up your good fight".
Reality Check

Camden, AR

#20901 Jan 19, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
You spend way to much time, listing perceived problems, of those who do not tote the same line as you.
Have you ever stop to think you are not perfect, the world will still turn, if things are different from your ideal world.
What is good for you may be less advantageous for someone else.
Learn to live with diversity, or be left farther behind than you already have.
That's why I said "I believe". This means what I am saying is from my perspective. It's not pushing it on anyone else or even asking others share my point of view. My point of view counts just as much as anyone elses point of view. If someone reads my posts and decides maybe they should stop and take a look around and form their own opinion the way I do then that's fine. If not, as you do, then that's fine too. I'm not trying to start a movement, I'm simply stating things from my perspective. I certainly don't think I am perfect. Far from it. I do notice that you are saying that someone such as myself doesn't fit into your "diverse" world, that I could be left behind if I don't change my way of thinking. Could you give me the liberal definition of diversity? I looked diversity up in the dictionary and I found this:
"The fact or quality of being diverse; difference.
A point or respect in which things differ.
Variety or multiformity"

Seems to me that I would fit that definition of diversity. That I would be included. Does the liberal definition mean that one has to be liberal to be diverse? If we are supposed to be diverse, why should I be left behind? Is the liberal diverse world smaller than other worlds where only a select few "diverse" individuals may enter. To be a part of such an accepting party you sure are exclusive. Maybe liberals are not what they seem on the surface. Surely not? Could that be?

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.

El Dorado Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hannah Hightower March 1 hr yea 3
Arkansas hypocrisy 6 hr well 5
Clown season open 6 hr Klownkilla 1
Clinton or Trump 8 hr Vertis Mason 14
Ponders 9 hr Pat 4
News Airline Serving 3 Arkansas Airports Ends Operat... 10 hr LaBroderick 4
News Would somebody ask Tim Griffin about Colin Kaep... 10 hr rest of the world 7

El Dorado Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

El Dorado Mortgages