Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2010?

Posted in the Ludowici Forum

Comments (Page 234)

Showing posts 4,661 - 4,680 of39,484
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5091
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is another INTERPRETATION. Want more?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/...
Good link, Synergy. There were other amendments that Republicans wanted to add to pay for the bill, but the Democrats wouldn't let them be voted on - Dems did not want Republicans to support the bill and thus take away their disingenuous finger pointing opportunity. They love to use people as props and pawns.
columbus native

Edmond, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5092
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sentence fragments are not helpful in trying to understand your post. Are you actually saying our soldiers are "spoiled" and overpaid and fighting for selfish reasons? No wonder you voted for Obama.
You military whinners are the worst. Go fight a war for cheney bush and haliburton and want the rest of us to applaud!Many got their huge student loans discharged, got nice salaries with big bonuses and the taxpayer picks up your tab. Injured or killed? Why did you go and fight a senseless war and when the outcome is not pleasing you want everyone to feel soooo sorry for you.
columbus native

Edmond, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5093
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, recent polls have Obama's approval ratings dropping steadily - 4 points since last month and 8 points since December to 47%. And when looking at just self identified Democrats and Independents, his numbers have dropped up to 10% depending on the poll. At the same time, the number of those identifying themselves as Republicans has increased, while those identifying themselves as Independents is at the lowest point since November. Maybe the public is finally waking up - just wish it had happened sooner.
Your ken and barbie romney pair would be a worst disaster then Obama. You want us to stop doing anything good for OUR country here in America and go blow our brains out all over the world foghting enemies that are dangerous to their own countries but not MINE. Get a life, get out of the military so you can think straight, go to a technical school learn a trade and start paying taxes instead of bleeding this great country with over-hyped military BS. You are no World War 11 or Korean war winners but exspensive losers who got caught up in the worst presidents evers deceitful crooked ways.
columbus native

Edmond, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5094
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

CORE CORRUPTION wrote:
BOTH SHAMELESS AND ISICKSON VOTED FOR THE WALL STREET INVESTMENT BANK BAILOUT.
After bush and company took all regulations off Wallstreet there was a giant unregulated run on our banks and financial institutions by corrupt individuals who believe as corruptly as bush. The result is a massive bailout paid for by honest taxpayers or else this country and world would be in the worst depression ever to almost outdo bush the worst scumbag ever! Take regulations off the cattle raisers and you get lots of cattle feces to go along with your hamburger meat. It's ashame there has to be regulations but with human greed at it's highest level it unfortunetly is a necessity. In fact I question those who want to unregulate everything. Are they not aware that regulations(not over regulations) gurantee our safety on all levels from scame artists all around us!
domino

Jackson, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5095
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

columbus native wrote:
<quoted text>You military whinners are the worst. Go fight a war for cheney bush and haliburton and want the rest of us to applaud!Many got their huge student loans discharged, got nice salaries with big bonuses and the taxpayer picks up your tab. Injured or killed? Why did you go and fight a senseless war and when the outcome is not pleasing you want everyone to feel soooo sorry for you.
You could stop making statements on things you know nothing whatsoever about. Those "Military Loans" as you put it, are call GI Bills, which each individual pays in every pay period. If one does not serve their full enlisrment, then that is lost. As a matter of fact, unless its reinstated, Obama has taken that away too. And the soldiers, themselves, paid it in. ITS THEIRS!
Man in Plaid

Americus, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5096
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

We right-wingers complain when we "have to contribute" because we are the main contributors of tax dollars. At some point, the parasite-infested host realizes that if he doesn't get rid of the bloodsuckers, he won't sustain life much longer. And parasites, being parasites, couldn't care less.

It appears to me that the contribution of the progressives to the modern political landscape is the creation of a large and growing class of people who depend upon the government to support them in various ways. My favorite government dependent this time of year is the recipient of the six thousand dollar tax refund. How can someone who doesn't pay taxes draw such an enormous check at the taxpayers' expense? It makes me wonder if a person who persists in a non-productive lifestyle because he/she can depend upon the government to tax money taken from solvent workers to supplement his/her meagre income each year is the embodiment of a new kind of American Dream. This gives a new meaning to "full faith in the American government."

I wonder what Marx and Engels would say were they here to observe this new means of manipulating and robbing the working class voters. Perhaps they would see the creation of a dependent class as a way of splitting the proletariat, thus diminishing its political potential. This raises an important question: What are the Progressives progressing toward? If this split of the proletariat is any indicator, then it appears to be a progression toward oligarchy. Should not a Progressive see this as a problem? Should they not be disconcerted by the growth of a large group of voters who cast ballots for their cause out of economic dependence rather than informed decisions based upon critical thought? Is not this only a means of using the conditioned needs of many to ensure the power of the few? Is this progress or regress?

As a reader of history and classic literature, I cannot help but see the Progressives' recent use of those dependent on the government as a contemporary episode of a courtship with a fickle mob. When allegiance derives from handouts, the mob will turn to those with the deepest pockets and the most lucrative offer. Should the parasitic nature of entitlements-based politics reach its inevitable end, the failure of the American economy and currency, how will the Progressives fare with the monster hat they have created as a means to power?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5097
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Man in Plaid wrote:
Should not a Progressive see this as a problem? Should they not be disconcerted by the growth of a large group of voters who cast ballots for their cause out of economic dependence rather than informed decisions based upon critical thought? Is not this only a means of using the conditioned needs of many to ensure the power of the few?
Thank you for such an outstanding post. The portion I quoted above to me is, regrettably, the crux of the matter. It is hard not to come to the conclusion that that is the goal of the Liberals. Create a permanent underclass that considers itself incapable of surviving without a paternalistic government to take care of them. This ensures that those same people will always vote for whomever promises the most handouts, rather than "hand ups." They will never rise above that and so will guarantee the perpetual power of those promising the handouts. What both groups (the Liberals and their dependents) will not recognize is that it is impossible to sustain an economic system that keeps taking more and more away from those who produce and contribute to this country in order to support those who WILL not (not CAN not) support themselves. And yet the people (top 5% income earners) who already pay more in taxes than the bottom 95% combined are called whiners and greedy for not wanting to pay even more taxes to support wasteful, duplicative programs. If we do not get a handle on the out of control spending in all areas, there will not be money for those who truly need help. And yet those on the Left think that those who make this country work will just sit back while more and more gets taken from them. Is anybody paying attention to what happened in Cyprus today, there are lessons to be learned there - or warnings to be heeded.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5098
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

In the 1930's Communist were called Progressives as the word Communist drew a negative responses from the public. They knew what communist were and didn't like them, but the word Progressives was something new!
Call a Socialist liberal a Communist and they are ready to fight you. Call them a Progressive and they will tell you that is what they are. They are proud to be Progressives.
Are they so dumb and ignorant that they don't know that a Progressive is the same as a Communist?
I think they know, but just won't admit to themselves or others of what they really are. Kind of puzzling isn't it?
Either you are, or you are not. Which is it?

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5099
Mar 25, 2013
 
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for such an outstanding post. The portion I quoted above to me is, regrettably, the crux of the matter. It is hard not to come to the conclusion that that is the goal of the Liberals. Create a permanent underclass that considers itself incapable of surviving without a paternalistic government to take care of them. This ensures that those same people will always vote for whomever promises the most handouts, rather than "hand ups." They will never rise above that and so will guarantee the perpetual power of those promising the handouts. What both groups (the Liberals and their dependents) will not recognize is that it is impossible to sustain an economic system that keeps taking more and more away from those who produce and contribute to this country in order to support those who WILL not (not CAN not) support themselves. And yet the people (top 5% income earners) who already pay more in taxes than the bottom 95% combined are called whiners and greedy for not wanting to pay even more taxes to support wasteful, duplicative programs. If we do not get a handle on the out of control spending in all areas, there will not be money for those who truly need help. And yet those on the Left think that those who make this country work will just sit back while more and more gets taken from them. Is anybody paying attention to what happened in Cyprus today, there are lessons to be learned there - or warnings to be heeded.
+1 well stated.

I've (attempted to) to say pretty much the same thing several times, you said it so much better...
truth

Americus, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5100
Mar 25, 2013
 
Down with obama
Bored

Dahlonega, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5101
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
We better alert the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans association, and the other veterans organizations supporting the bill, that they are are just not smart enough to understand what they should support, and what they shouldn't.
So, we'll retrain our veterans to understand that:
When Bush underfunded Walter Reed and made wounded veterans live in squalor - with mold and rats, squalor is good;
When Right Wingers refuse to fund veterans programs at the levels the veterans and the Moderates and Progressives demand- that's shows how much Right Wingers love veterans;
When Democrats consistently vote at higher rates to fund veterans programs than Republicans - that's good for veterans
When the Right Wing House is gutting 11 Billion this year alone from veterans programs - that was good for veterans.
The neat thing about this debate is jts about money - not emotion.
Right Wingers love veterans -they'll say lots of fancy words with the flags waving in the background of the TV shots, just don't ask them to spend their money on them.
Talk is cheap - money - now that's something else.
Boring.
jeb stuart

Savannah, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5102
Mar 25, 2013
 
Bigdave1 wrote:
In the 1930's Communist were called Progressives as the word Communist drew a negative responses from the public. They knew what communist were and didn't like them, but the word Progressives was something new!
Call a Socialist liberal a Communist and they are ready to fight you. Call them a Progressive and they will tell you that is what they are. They are proud to be Progressives.
Are they so dumb and ignorant that they don't know that a Progressive is the same as a Communist?
I think they know, but just won't admit to themselves or others of what they really are. Kind of puzzling isn't it?
Either you are, or you are not. Which is it?
wow! does this mean that a the magazine "progressive farmer"(which really came into prominence in the 1930's-altho it was first published in the 1880's)was really a communist-inspired magazine?

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5103
Mar 25, 2013
 
columbus native wrote:
<quoted text>Your ken and barbie romney pair would be a worst disaster then Obama. You want us to stop doing anything good for OUR country here in America and go blow our brains out all over the world foghting enemies that are dangerous to their own countries but not MINE. Get a life, get out of the military so you can think straight, go to a technical school learn a trade and start paying taxes instead of bleeding this great country with over-hyped military BS. You are no World War 11 or Korean war winners but exspensive losers who got caught up in the worst presidents evers deceitful crooked ways.
Your comments about the Romney's are something you'll NEVER know. We KNEW what Obama was up to and you uninformed voters STILL voted for him AGAIN. You have NO IDEA what kind of president Romney would have been, so you might as well move on. YOU voted for Obama, now YOU are going to pay the piper BIG TIME!!!! The trouble is, you are taking the rest of us down with you. Disgusting.
Progressives

Dahlonega, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5104
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

One historian defined progressivism as the "political movement that addresses ideas, impulses, and issues stemming from modernization of American society. Emerging at the end of the nineteenth century, it established much of the tone of American politics throughout the first half of the century."

Historians debate the exact contours, but generally date the "Progressive Era" from the 1890s to either World War I or the onset of the Great Depression.

The Founders believed that all men are created equal and that they have certain inalienable rights. All are also obliged to obey the natural law, under which we have not only rights but duties. We are obliged "to respect those rights in others which we value in ourselves" (Jefferson). The main rights were thought to be life and liberty, including the liberty to organize one's own church, to associate at work or at home with whomever one pleases, and to use one's talents to acquire and keep property. For the Founders, then, there is a natural moral order -- rules discovered by human reason that promote human well-being, rules that can and should guide human life and politics.

The Progressives rejected these claims as naive and unhistorical. In their view, human beings are not born free. John Dewey, the most thoughtful of the Progressives, wrote that freedom is not "something that individuals have as a ready-made possession." It is "something to be achieved." In this view, freedom is not a gift of God or nature. It is a product of human making, a gift of the state. Man is a product of his own history, through which he collectively creates himself. He is a social construct. Since human beings are not naturally free, there can be no natural rights or natural law. Therefore, Dewey also writes, "Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology."

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5105
Mar 25, 2013
 
domino wrote:
<quoted text>
You could stop making statements on things you know nothing whatsoever about. Those "Military Loans" as you put it, are call GI Bills, which each individual pays in every pay period. If one does not serve their full enlisrment, then that is lost. As a matter of fact, unless its reinstated, Obama has taken that away too. And the soldiers, themselves, paid it in. ITS THEIRS!
You are TRYING to converse with a low information voter. It's frustrating, huh? He's uninformed just like the rest of his ilk.
Progressives

Dahlonega, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5106
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The Purpose of Government

For the Founders, thinking about government began with the recognition that what man is given by nature -- his capacity for reason and the moral law discovered by reason -- is, in the most important respect, more valuable than anything government can give him. Not that nature provides him with his needs. In fact, the Founders thought that civilization is indispensable for human well-being. Although government can be a threat to liberty, government is also necessary for the security of liberty. As Madison wrote, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." But since men are not angels, without government, human beings would live in "a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger." In the Founders' view, nature does give human beings the most valuable things: their bodies and minds. These are the basis of their talents, which they achieve by cultivating these natural gifts but which would be impossible without those gifts.

For the Founders, then, the individual's existence and freedom in this crucial respect are not a gift of government. They are a gift of God and nature. Government is therefore always and fundamentally in the service of the individual, not the other way around. The purpose of government, then, is to enforce the natural law for the members of the political community by securing the people's natural rights. It does so by preserving their lives and liberties against the violence of others. In the founding, the liberty to be secured by government is not freedom from necessity or poverty. It is freedom from the despotic and predatory domination of some human beings over others.

Government's main duty for the Founders is to secure that freedom -- at home through the making and enforcement of criminal and civil law, abroad through a strong national defense. The protection of life and liberty is achieved through vigorous prosecutions of crime against person and property or through civil suits for recovery of damages, these cases being decided by a jury of one's peers.

The Progressives regarded the Founders' scheme as defective because it took too benign a view of nature. As Dewey remarked, they thought that the individual was ready-made by nature. The Founders' supposed failure to recognize the crucial role of society led the Progressives to disparage the Founders' insistence on limited government. The Progressive goal of politics is freedom, now understood as freedom from the limits imposed by nature and necessity. They rejected the Founders' conception of freedom as useful for self-preservation for the sake of the individual pursuit of happiness. For the Progressives, freedom is redefined as the fulfillment of human capacities, which becomes the primary task of the state.

To this end, Dewey writes, "the state has the responsibility for creating institutions under which individuals can effectively realize the potentialities that are theirs." So although "it is true that social arrangements, laws, institutions are made for man, rather than that man is made for them," these laws and institutions "are not means for obtaining something for individuals, not even happiness. They are means of creating individuals…. Individuality in a social and moral sense is something to be wrought out." "Creating individuals" versus "protecting individuals": this sums up the difference between the Founders' and the Progressives' conception of what government is for.
Progressives

Dahlonega, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5107
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The Progressives' Rejection of consent and Compact as the Basis of Society

In accordance with their conviction that all human beings are by nature free, the Founders taught that political society is "formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good" (Massachusetts Constitution of 1780).

For the Founders, the consent principle extended beyond the founding of society into its ordinary operation. Government was to be conducted under laws, and laws were to be made by locally elected officials, accountable through frequent elections to those who chose them. The people would be directly involved in governing through their participation in juries selected by lot.

The Progressives treated the social compact idea with scorn. Charles Merriam, a leading Progressive political scientist, wrote:

The individualistic ideas of the "natural right" school of political theory, indorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiated…. The origin of the state is regarded, not as the result of a deliberate agreement among men, but as the result of historical development, instinctive rather than conscious; and rights are considered to have their source not in nature, but in law.

For the Progressives, then, it was of no great importance whether or not government begins in consent as long as it serves its proper end of remolding man in such a way as to bring out his real capacities and aspirations. As Merriam wrote, "it was the idea of the state that supplanted the social contract as the ground of political right." Democracy and consent are not absolutely rejected by the Progressives, but their importance is greatly diminished, as we will see when we come to the Progressive conception of governmental structure.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5108
Mar 25, 2013
 
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for such an outstanding post. The portion I quoted above to me is, regrettably, the crux of the matter. It is hard not to come to the conclusion that that is the goal of the Liberals. Create a permanent underclass that considers itself incapable of surviving without a paternalistic government to take care of them. This ensures that those same people will always vote for whomever promises the most handouts, rather than "hand ups." They will never rise above that and so will guarantee the perpetual power of those promising the handouts. What both groups (the Liberals and their dependents) will not recognize is that it is impossible to sustain an economic system that keeps taking more and more away from those who produce and contribute to this country in order to support those who WILL not (not CAN not) support themselves. And yet the people (top 5% income earners) who already pay more in taxes than the bottom 95% combined are called whiners and greedy for not wanting to pay even more taxes to support wasteful, duplicative programs. If we do not get a handle on the out of control spending in all areas, there will not be money for those who truly need help. And yet those on the Left think that those who make this country work will just sit back while more and more gets taken from them. Is anybody paying attention to what happened in Cyprus today, there are lessons to be learned there - or warnings to be heeded.
You NAILED it, Aggie. Excellent.
Progressives

Dahlonega, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5109
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

For the Founders, the purpose of government is to protect the private sphere, which they regarded as the proper home of both the high and the low, of the important and the merely urgent, of God, religion, and science, as well as providing for the needs of the body. The experience of religious persecution had convinced the Founders that government was incompetent at directing man in his highest endeavors. The requirements of liberty, they thought, meant that self-interested private associations had to be permitted, not because they are good in themselves, but because depriving individuals of freedom of association would deny the liberty that is necessary for the health of society and the flourishing of the individual.

For the Founders, although government was grounded in divine law (i.e., the laws of nature and of nature's God), government was seen as a merely human thing, bound up with all the strengths and weaknesses of human nature. Government had to be limited both because it was dangerous if it got too powerful and because it was not supposed to provide for the highest things in life.

Because of the Progressives' tendency to view the state as divine and the natural as low, they no longer looked upon the private sphere as that which was to be protected by government. Instead, the realm of the private was seen as the realm of selfishness and oppression. Private property was especially singled out for criticism. Some Progressives openly or covertly spoke of themselves as socialists.

Woodrow Wilson did so in an unpublished writing. A society like the Founders' that limits itself to protecting life, liberty, and property was one in which, as Wilson wrote with only slight exaggeration, "all that government had to do was to put on a policeman's uniform and say,'Now don't anybody hurt anybody else.'" Wilson thought that such a society was unable to deal with the conditions of modern times.

Wilson rejected the earlier view that "the ideal of government was for every man to be left alone and not interfered with, except when he interfered with somebody else; and that the best government was the government that did as little governing as possible." A government of this kind is unjust because it leaves men at the mercy of predatory corporations. Without government management of those corporations, Wilson thought, the poor would be destined to indefinite victimization by the wealthy. Previous limits on government power must be abolished. Accordingly, Progressive political scientist Theodore Woolsey wrote, "The sphere of the state may reach as far as the nature and needs of man and of men reach, including intellectual and aesthetic wants of the individual, and the religious and moral nature of its citizens."

However, this transformation is still in the future, for Progress takes place through historical development. A sign of the Progressives' unlimited trust in unlimited political authority is Dewey's remark in his "Ethics of Democracy" that Plato's Republic presents us with the "perfect man in the perfect state." What Plato's Socrates had presented as a thought experiment to expose the nature and limits of political life is taken by Dewey to be a laudable obliteration of the private sphere by government mandate. In a remark that the Founders would have found repugnant, Progressive political scientist John Burgess wrote that "the most fundamental and indispensable mark of statehood" was "the original, absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject, and all associations of subjects."

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5110
Mar 25, 2013
 
Man in Plaid wrote:
We right-wingers complain when we "have to contribute" because we are the main contributors of tax dollars. At some point, the parasite-infested host realizes that if he doesn't get rid of the bloodsuckers, he won't sustain life much longer. And parasites, being parasites, couldn't care less.
It appears to me that the contribution of the progressives to the modern political landscape is the creation of a large and growing class of people who depend upon the government to support them in various ways. My favorite government dependent this time of year is the recipient of the six thousand dollar tax refund. How can someone who doesn't pay taxes draw such an enormous check at the taxpayers' expense? It makes me wonder if a person who persists in a non-productive lifestyle because he/she can depend upon the government to tax money taken from solvent workers to supplement his/her meagre income each year is the embodiment of a new kind of American Dream. This gives a new meaning to "full faith in the American government."
I wonder what Marx and Engels would say were they here to observe this new means of manipulating and robbing the working class voters. Perhaps they would see the creation of a dependent class as a way of splitting the proletariat, thus diminishing its political potential. This raises an important question: What are the Progressives progressing toward? If this split of the proletariat is any indicator, then it appears to be a progression toward oligarchy. Should not a Progressive see this as a problem? Should they not be disconcerted by the growth of a large group of voters who cast ballots for their cause out of economic dependence rather than informed decisions based upon critical thought? Is not this only a means of using the conditioned needs of many to ensure the power of the few? Is this progress or regress?
As a reader of history and classic literature, I cannot help but see the Progressives' recent use of those dependent on the government as a contemporary episode of a courtship with a fickle mob. When allegiance derives from handouts, the mob will turn to those with the deepest pockets and the most lucrative offer. Should the parasitic nature of entitlements-based politics reach its inevitable end, the failure of the American economy and currency, how will the Progressives fare with the monster hat they have created as a means to power?
Thanks for such a great post. "Informed Opinion" is an admitted Progressive. I am interested in his response to this. I asked him earlier today what he wants our country to "look" like when all is said and done. Haven't heard back, yet.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 4,661 - 4,680 of39,484
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Ludowici Discussions

Search the Ludowici Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
stively motorcylcle repair 8 hr concerned 5
Georgia Work Ready 15 hr Alen 1
GA Who do you support for Governor in Georgia in 2... (Oct '10) Apr 13 youfool 1,983
Review: Jj&b Services Apr 10 Jacksinnj 2
A show for the troops: Lt. Dan Band rocks Fort ... Apr 7 LaDonna Clark 1
Review: Boyds Insurance Services-Jesup Apr 5 2peasnapod 1
Motorists cautioned as smoke from Fort Stewart ... Apr 2 Lawswon 1
•••
•••
•••
•••

Ludowici Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Ludowici People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••