Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,141 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Reality Check

Camden, AR

#26779 Sep 10, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
AP-40 minutes ago
MOSCOW (AP)— Syria says it has accepted Russia's proposal to place its chemical weapons under international control for subsequent dismantling.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said Tuesday after meeting with Russian parliament speaker that his government quickly agreed to the Russian initiative to "derail the U.S. aggression
Hummmmmmmmmmm, looks like President Obama is well on the way to making the world a safer place and did not fire one shot, or drop one bomb.
Obviously Syria and Russia both know President Obama could have lobed a few missiles at Syria had he chosen to do so.
Unfortunately there are many in the U.S., including the media that has yet to realize that the request to Congress is Political theater.
Syria and Russia are showing signs of doing the right thing, Republican are red faced, privately asking themselves and one another, why did we not see that coming!!!!!!!
You should not under estimate what a skilled politician President Obama is. He beat the Clinton political machine to win the nomination.
That speaks volumes!
While Putin is known for his dislike of terrorist (which I respect him for), to think that he is willing to help the United States is a dream. Let's not forget that Russia is not too far removed from being a Communist nation. They still have favorable relationships with Iran and China for no better reason than to not let America gain another foothold as the world's strongest nation. In other words to keep us down where Obama has led us. We will see just how many chemical weapons show up in Russia as a result of this deal. My guess is that it won't be much. I also wonder what will happen to the facilities where these weapons were made. If they are not distroyed, then how strong is the conviction to eliminate those types of weapons in the Middle East? And it appears as though the big deal Obama made about the women and children who were supposedly gassed to death isn't as big of a deal anymore since the agreement. What happened to Obama's then the world's red line? That puts us back at why Obama made a big deal of the whole Syria thing in the first place. My bet is on a coverup for something else Obama was doing that he didn't want the American people to see. What that is will have to be discovered at a later date. Obama's stance on the situation in Syria cooled down way too fast in relation to the amount of attention and importance that was given to it. Obama is talking about still going to Congress to get authorization for force if the situation arises but I bet he won't even do that now regardless of what he says.
Reality Check

Camden, AR

#26780 Sep 10, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
AP-40 minutes ago
MOSCOW (AP)— Syria says it has accepted Russia's proposal to place its chemical weapons under international control for subsequent dismantling.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said Tuesday after meeting with Russian parliament speaker that his government quickly agreed to the Russian initiative to "derail the U.S. aggression
Hummmmmmmmmmm, looks like President Obama is well on the way to making the world a safer place and did not fire one shot, or drop one bomb.
Obviously Syria and Russia both know President Obama could have lobed a few missiles at Syria had he chosen to do so.
Unfortunately there are many in the U.S., including the media that has yet to realize that the request to Congress is Political theater.
Syria and Russia are showing signs of doing the right thing, Republican are red faced, privately asking themselves and one another, why did we not see that coming!!!!!!!
You should not under estimate what a skilled politician President Obama is. He beat the Clinton political machine to win the nomination.
That speaks volumes!
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said Tuesday after meeting with Russian parliament speaker that his government quickly “agreed to the Russian initiative.”

Al-Moallem added that Syria did so to “uproot U.S. aggression.”

Uproot U.S. aggression? It's all about kicking America while we are down (after being knocked to the ground because of Obama's policies) and not the women and children. Neither Assad, Russia, and especially not Obama care anything about those people no matter what they say. Sorry to burst your Obama bubble. No I'm not, who am I kidding?
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#26781 Sep 10, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, what two years exactly are you referring to?
While you are at it, give us the names of those 60 Senators who gave the Democrats a super majority, for two years.
I will give you a clue big boy, it did not happen, Ted Kennedy died, and was replaced with a Republican.
After that, the super majority was gone.......
Not to mention Sen. Alan “Al” Franken was sworn in months later after he won the election, you see young man , once again you have no idea of what you are talking about.
Poor pitiful Boy Barney, so confused all the time. There is no denying the democraps had the house the senate and the Presidency for the first two years Odumbo was in office. You truly are an IDIOT!
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#26782 Sep 10, 2013
Odumbo can't lose. The lame stream libtard media will make this idiot look like a hero and genius. They are so invested in the first half black President in U.S. history that they will not let him fail. If only they could do the same for Boy Barney!
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#26783 Sep 10, 2013
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#26784 Sep 10, 2013
‘a weak and indecisive leader’

Those Americans with COMMON SENSE and SMARTS knew this before he was ever elected.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#26785 Sep 10, 2013
WARRIOR wrote:
<quoted text>Poor pitiful Boy Barney, so confused all the time. There is no denying the democraps had the house the senate and the Presidency for the first two years Odumbo was in office. You truly are an IDIOT!
You obviously know the Dems held the majority in both houses of Congress

Well here is your chance to show us you know how the Senate works.

Name the 60 Senators and what two years are you talking about,

tell us how many filibusters were created by the Republicans during this two years that the democrats held this 60 vote filibuster proof majority.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#26787 Sep 10, 2013
WARRIOR wrote:
‘a weak and indecisive leader’
Those Americans with COMMON SENSE and SMARTS knew this before he was ever elected.
Here is a article by a liberal talking head attention whor*, Topix thinks that is a bad word.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/10/michel...

Now tell me , how you can find any value in either opinion except for a good laugh, from either writer.

Reality Check

Camden, AR

#26788 Sep 10, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously know the Dems held the majority in both houses of Congress
Well here is your chance to show us you know how the Senate works.
Name the 60 Senators and what two years are you talking about,
tell us how many filibusters were created by the Republicans during this two years that the democrats held this 60 vote filibuster proof majority.
No matter how you spin it, Obama had a majority in both houses of Congress and should have been able to get what he wanted done. It would take 60 votes to invoke a cloture. If the Senate voted down party lines then it would have never happened in those years so the blame sits squarely on the controlling party's shoulders. The Democrats. Besides there were only 63 successful cloture votes in the Senate. How many times did the Senate vote? I can tell you that it's alot more than 63. All a cloture vote meant to that Senate was that not even Obama's own party agrees with him so quit crying.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#26789 Sep 10, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter how you spin it, Obama had a majority in both houses of Congress and should have been able to get what he wanted done. It would take 60 votes to invoke a cloture. If the Senate voted down party lines then it would have never happened in those years so the blame sits squarely on the controlling party's shoulders. The Democrats. Besides there were only 63 successful cloture votes in the Senate. How many times did the Senate vote? I can tell you that it's alot more than 63. All a cloture vote meant to that Senate was that not even Obama's own party agrees with him so quit crying.
No matter what name you post under you are just as clueless as the other.

It is not a question of whom had the majority, that is clear.

Here is what you obviously do not understand about the Senate cloture rule.

1. It takes 60 votes to pass major legislation.

2.It takes 60 votes to override, a filibuster.


The Democrats held only 56 seats on January 15, 2009.

The most seats Democrats held in the Senate at one time in 2009 was 58 and two Independents who caucused with the Democrats.


Shoots the Hell out of your explanation of the cloture rule.


The Democratic Party theoretically had a 60% filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate for most of the time period between July 7, 2009, when Al Franken (D) won a contested seat, and February 4, 2010, when Scott Brown (R) replaced Ted Kennedy (D).

However, Ted Kennedy's terminal illness kept him out of Washington from March 2009 until his death on August 25.

The Democrats' 60%(potential) super majority ended on September 24 when Kennedy's replacement Scott Brown (R), was seated.


Only tears you see here, are tears of sadness for your ass backward explanation of the cloture rule'


animal control

Bluffton, OH

#26790 Sep 10, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter what name you post under you are just as clueless as the other.
It is not a question of whom had the majority, that is clear.

Only tears you see here, are tears of sadness for your ass backward explanation of the cloture rule'
excutive privvy....?...EAT-it .....Beach!



no charge
Sambo

Hardy, AR

#26791 Sep 11, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a article by a liberal talking head attention whor*, Topix thinks that is a bad word.
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/10/michel...
Now tell me , how you can find any value in either opinion except for a good laugh, from either writer.
Pegging is heterosexual strap-on sex where the woman penetrates the man's anus with a strap-on dildo.

Pegging is simply one more way for couples to find pleasure in bed.

Men have a Prostate gland, which when stimulated, can provide intense pleasure and orgasms 10x more powerful than a normal orgasm - that is their motivation for anal stimulation.

Women can enjoy switching roles and running the show. They can also enjoy providing their partner with amazing amounts of pleasure. And some women can reach orgasm while pegging.

So - there are a lot of incentives to explore pegging for both the man and the woman. Pegging gives you the chance to take a walk in your partners shoes, sexually, which many times results in deepening intimacy due to compassion and understanding.

The most common misconception about pegging is that men who enjoy it are gay. Incorrect. The area of your body that you enjoy having stimulated has no bearing on the gender you prefer to do the stimulating. Plus, only about 35% of gay men even have anal sex, so everyone would do well to let go of the old, tired assumption that men who enjoy anal stimulation must be gay.

The next most common misconception is that it hurts. Not when done correctly, if fact not only does it not hurt, but it can provide intense pleasure for the man.

I do it. I teach about it. I write about it. I love it. I am not looking for anyone to do it with.

Happy Pegging,
Barney
Reality Check

Camden, AR

#26792 Sep 11, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter what name you post under you are just as clueless as the other.
It is not a question of whom had the majority, that is clear.
Here is what you obviously do not understand about the Senate cloture rule.
1. It takes 60 votes to pass major legislation.
2.It takes 60 votes to override, a filibuster.
The Democrats held only 56 seats on January 15, 2009.
The most seats Democrats held in the Senate at one time in 2009 was 58 and two Independents who caucused with the Democrats.
Shoots the Hell out of your explanation of the cloture rule.
The Democratic Party theoretically had a 60% filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate for most of the time period between July 7, 2009, when Al Franken (D) won a contested seat, and February 4, 2010, when Scott Brown (R) replaced Ted Kennedy (D).
However, Ted Kennedy's terminal illness kept him out of Washington from March 2009 until his death on August 25.
The Democrats' 60%(potential) super majority ended on September 24 when Kennedy's replacement Scott Brown (R), was seated.
Only tears you see here, are tears of sadness for your ass backward explanation of the cloture rule'
Just wondering how many filibusters were successful in the 111th Congress and on what bills? Do you know? My guess is that maybe none eliminated any bills of importance to Obama's agenda and only a handful caused bills to be altered and probably not that much. this brings us back to ineffective leadership.
animal control

Bluffton, OH

#26793 Sep 11, 2013
iz dat frum dah ken starr report....?.....Baby!

no charge
Reality Check

Camden, AR

#26794 Sep 11, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
The most seats Democrats held in the Senate at one time in 2009 was 58 and two Independents who caucused with the Democrats.
Shoots the Hell out of your explanation of the cloture rule.
If they caucused with the Democrats, who do you think they voted with the majority of the time? Brings me back to the original argument of ineffective leadership and you crying about it so stop it. Admit your leader sucks and is dragging the greatest country in the world into the toilet simply because he wants to and he occupies the most powerful office in the land so he can. Combine that with a blind following of people like you and an uninformed voting public that cares more about Miley Cyrus "twerking" at the MTV music awards show they do about the financial health and personal freedoms of this great nation and it's easy to see why we are falling into mediocrity.
Wow

United States

#26795 Sep 11, 2013
Speechless
Sambo

Hardy, AR

#26796 Sep 11, 2013
Terrorist activity has caused the Democrats to take measure in order to protect their candidate for the 2016 presidency. For security reasons, they have suggested that Hillary have a Muslim name. So from now on, please refer to her by her new Muslim name:





Seldom Bin Layed



what is a barney

San Francisco, CA

#26798 Sep 11, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep on phishing!
And in the mean time I will be the largest Donner in history to the, St.Jude Children Hospital.
How old are you? You sound like a child at recess..."...I will be the largest 'Donner' in the history..."
Can we get some proof on that statement?!?

(And, quite possibly, you actually mean 'donor' instead of 'Donner'... at least I hope so! It's fine, though! Kids make mistakes. We understand that)
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#26799 Sep 11, 2013
Boy Barney is the stupidest person I have ever dealt with, bar none!
Yep

Little Rock, AR

#26800 Sep 12, 2013
I voted

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.

Pocahontas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Erika Rackley 3 hr Been there 3631 60
Cheating (Aug '12) 4 hr the help 71
Michael Cocherell 4 hr Waitresses 48
Seeking older woman 60 + 4 hr Waitresses 8
cordless phone batteries 5 hr obsolete 1
should I let my 14 year old daughter shave her ... (Jun '10) 8 hr Trymeononetime 50
Family Auto Group 8 hr Angela 5
Pocahontas Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Pocahontas People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:31 pm PST

NBC Sports12:31PM
Source: Browns interview former Rams coach Mike Martz
NBC Sports 3:14 AM
Rams won't get chance to interview Rob Chudzinski or Alex Van Pelt
Bleacher Report 6:15 PM
Why the St. Louis Rams Must Draft Dorial Green-Beckham
NBC Sports 8:37 AM
Nathaniel Hackett interviewing for Rams offensive coordinator on Thursday
Yahoo! Sports 8:12 AM
The lure of LA for the NFL - mirage or 'must do'?