Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,156 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Andy

Jonesboro, AR

#28748 Jan 21, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Face it Andy, if proper grammar and lack of typos is what you are seeking, then a Topix thread is not likely where you want to be.
However if you are a conservative/republican who can not stand the truth, lacking any thing positive to defend your own party, so you shoot the messenger,
congratulations, you are right at home!
I guess you are on home detention being here with me. I just expect a little more from someone who seeks to save the world from democracy and the American way. Continue being Barney, we will continue being amused.

“Frankly my dear...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#28749 Jan 21, 2014
guest wrote:
You really dont make no sense. How about you go find you a man that wants to be with your sorry tale! Keep on trying bc your getting nowhere.
This guest writer doesn't care to use double negatives, misspelled words, and sorry 'tails' of woe. Maybe it was intentional, or stupidity, or both. One thing's for sure...it's funny! In a sort of 'bless your pea-picking heart, this is so stupid I can't stop myself from laughing at you' way.
Oh, and my name really is Scarlett O'Hara. I don't know about the other person you are yelling at, but I simply never hide behind anonymity!
Old Army

Quitman, AR

#28750 Jan 22, 2014
I'm back. Watsup Homes?
Jennifer

Jonesboro, AR

#28751 Jan 22, 2014
Old Army wrote:
I'm back. Watsup Homes?
Same as when you left, Barney being Barney and then there are the intelligent posters. Welcome back.

Since: Dec 13

Location hidden

#28752 Jan 22, 2014
Well, Mr. Barney, this thread has covered the multiple times you defended a party that has lied to you and betrayed you. It really doesn't matter if your pride keeps you from admitting it. It is a fact. It has happened often, and when it does, you tuck tail and run away for a while. You go ahead and tell me how wrong I am, and what a great team you and the democrats make, and how great numbers are, and the economy is on the rise, and if it is struggling in any area, it is because of George W., and how global warming is real, and white snow is racist.
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#28753 Jan 22, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Good for you, now you can breathe a sigh of relief that he hasn't succeeded at being a socialist.
Have you succeeded in that endeavor yet?

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#28756 Jan 22, 2014
Old Army wrote:
I'm back. Watsup Homes?
I don't care about you, but how are the dogs doing?

Welcome back.
Reality Check

Camden, AR

#28757 Jan 22, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
The case has been heard by the Supreme Court, the ruling is expected in late June, then we shall see if the opinion of the Appeals court is a valid one. Until then, your opinion as well as the courts is in limbo, to suggest other wise is simply ignorant.
Where on earth did you get the idea I said , or implied for that matter,
"no liberal political activist in appointed positions"
I have to say, saying that I did, is laughable.
Do you even know what the Republicans were doing at the time, that prompted President Obama to make those appointments?
If you do, how do you defend what they were doing?
Only pointing out one side's shortcomings while not admitting your side's shortcomings implies that you only feel one side is wrong. In other words, you don't have to say it. What the Republicans were doing is irrelevant. Besides, did what the Republicans were doing affect the courts decision? No, so it doesn't matter. We are speaking on the constitutionality of Obama's actions and those actions have been deemed unconstitutional. End of argument. Now if the Supreme Court overturns the lower courts decision then I will gladly give Obama credit for acting within his constitutional authority. But if the Supreme Court upholds those claims, are you willing to admit that we know that Bush acted constitutionally and Obama did not? We'll see what you are made of if the decision goes against what you believe. Good luck.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#28758 Jan 22, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Only pointing out one side's shortcomings while not admitting your side's shortcomings implies that you only feel one side is wrong. In other words, you don't have to say it. What the Republicans were doing is irrelevant. Besides, did what the Republicans were doing affect the courts decision? No, so it doesn't matter. We are speaking on the constitutionality of Obama's actions and those actions have been deemed unconstitutional. End of argument. Now if the Supreme Court overturns the lower courts decision then I will gladly give Obama credit for acting within his constitutional authority. But if the Supreme Court upholds those claims, are you willing to admit that we know that Bush acted constitutionally and Obama did not? We'll see what you are made of if the decision goes against what you believe. Good luck.
The fact that 3 Republican political activist judges said it was unconstitutional is a given.

Good grief Charley Brown, of course it was legal for Bush, that is why it was just as legal when Obama did it, and has been the last 100 plus years.

What the Republicans were doing at the time was most relevant. It was the appeals court that upheld what the Republicans were doing as legal, which in their OPINION made Obama's appointments unconstitutional.

Do you even know who the two parties are behind this law suite pending before SCOTUS?

Obviously you are clueless of the chain events that led to Obama making those appointments.

Good grief man, if you are going to argue a point it would help if you knew what you was talking about

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#28759 Jan 22, 2014
scarlett o hara wrote:
<quoted text>
This guest writer doesn't care to use double negatives, misspelled words, and sorry 'tails' of woe. Maybe it was intentional, or stupidity, or both. One thing's for sure...it's funny! In a sort of 'bless your pea-picking heart, this is so stupid I can't stop myself from laughing at you' way.
Oh, and my name really is Scarlett O'Hara. I don't know about the other person you are yelling at, but I simply never hide behind anonymity!
Frankly Scarlett, you don't have to be educated to be smart.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#28760 Jan 22, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that 3 Republican political activist judges said it was unconstitutional is a given.
Good grief Charley Brown, of course it was legal for Bush, that is why it was just as legal when Obama did it, and has been the last 100 plus years.
What the Republicans were doing at the time was most relevant. It was the appeals court that upheld what the Republicans were doing as legal, which in their OPINION made Obama's appointments unconstitutional.
Do you even know who the two parties are behind this law suite pending before SCOTUS?
Obviously you are clueless of the chain events that led to Obama making those appointments.
Good grief man, if you are going to argue a point it would help if you knew what you was talking about
Ok, when you wipe away all the asterisks liberals use to justify their argument you are still left with the FACT that legally appointed judges saw Obama's actions as unconstitutional. It wasn't just their opinion but rather how the actions were defined as they stacked up against the way the Constitution was written. Who is behind the lawsuit has no relevance as to whether or not Obama's actions were constitutional or not. They certainly were a result of the unconstitutional ruling but weren't even a thought when Obama decided to act unconstitutionally. If you were going to argue a point it would help if you would not add circumstances and events that happened after the fact to the point being argued. This is a great example of how liberals only want things their way. When John Roberts literally changed the Obama Administrations argument for them from Obamacare being argued as a fine to Obamacare being a tax in the court case on whether or not the law was constitutional or not, liberals had no argument but rather hailed John Roberts as a hero that transcends today's partisan politics. Why? because he voted their way. Now this decision goes against the liberal way and all of a sudden there are political activist running wild and circumstances happening at the time of the appointments were crucial. So crucial, in fact, that they couldn't even be brought up in the case. Maybe they were brought up and liberals still lost.
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#28761 Jan 22, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankly Scarlett, you don't have to be educated to be smart.
You must not be educated because you think you are smart! LOL!

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#28762 Jan 22, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, when you wipe away all the asterisks liberals use to justify their argument you are still left with the FACT that legally appointed judges saw Obama's actions as unconstitutional. It wasn't just their opinion but rather how the actions were defined as they stacked up against the way the Constitution was written. Who is behind the lawsuit has no relevance as to whether or not Obama's actions were constitutional or not. They certainly were a result of the unconstitutional ruling but weren't even a thought when Obama decided to act unconstitutionally. If you were going to argue a point it would help if you would not add circumstances and events that happened after the fact to the point being argued. This is a great example of how liberals only want things their way. When John Roberts literally changed the Obama Administrations argument for them from Obamacare being argued as a fine to Obamacare being a tax in the court case on whether or not the law was constitutional or not, liberals had no argument but rather hailed John Roberts as a hero that transcends today's partisan politics. Why? because he voted their way. Now this decision goes against the liberal way and all of a sudden there are political activist running wild and circumstances happening at the time of the appointments were crucial. So crucial, in fact, that they couldn't even be brought up in the case. Maybe they were brought up and liberals still lost

As I said, it is a given, what the Appeals Court ruling was.

Now please tell me what,

"circumstances and events that happened after the fact to the point being argued"

did I add?

The bottom line is, the only thing you know for sure is what the appeals court ruling was, you are clueless to the rest of the story, hearing only what you want hear,and making yourself look foolish trying to convince yourself and everyone else you have a clue about what you are talking about.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#28763 Jan 22, 2014
WARRIOR wrote:
<quoted text>You must not be educated because you think you are smart! LOL!

Naw, its like I have told you before boy, I am not saying I am smart, just smarter than you, and that is not saying a whole Hell of a lot.
Joe

Chesapeake, VA

#28764 Jan 22, 2014
stress management wrote:
STRESS MANAGEMENT:
In case you are having a rough day, here's a stress management technique recommended in all the latest psychological journals.
The funny thing is that it really does work and will make you smile.
1. Picture yourself lying on your belly on a warm rock that hangs out over a crystal clear pond.
2. Picture yourself with both your hands dangling in the cool water.
3. Birds are sweetly singing in the cool mountain air.
4. No one knows your secret place.
5. You are in total seclusion from that hectic place called the world.
6. The soothing sound of a gentle waterfall fills the air with a cascade of serenity.
7. The water is so clear that you can make out the face of the Congressman you are holding underwater.
See, it worked. You feel better already.
nope.
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#28765 Jan 22, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Naw, its like I have told you before boy, I am not saying I am smart, just smarter than you, and that is not saying a whole Hell of a lot.
That would be almost believable if I didn't have to correct almost every post you post.
Hell that would be believable if YOU didn't have to correct EVERY post you post!
thewritingonthew all

Amsterdam, Netherlands

#28767 Jan 22, 2014
Prominent indicators confirm that the U.S. is the chief facilitator of the persecution of Christians around the world today.

According to the recently released 2014 World Watch List, which ranks the 50 nations where Christians are most persecuted, Syria is the third worst nation in the world in which to be Christian, Iraq is fourth, Afghanistan fifth, and Libya 13th. All four countries receive the strongest designation,“extreme persecution”(other designations are “severe,”“moderate,” and “sparse” persecution).

Aside from being so closely and harshly ranked, these four nations have something else in common: heavy U.S. involvement. Three — Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya — were “liberated” thanks to U.S. forces, while in the fourth, Syria, the U.S. is actively sponsoring “freedom fighters” against the regime, many of whom would be better labeled “terrorists.”

The Syrian situation alone indicts U.S. foreign policy. According to Reuters:

Open Doors, a non-denominational group supporting persecuted Christians worldwide, said on Wednesday it had documented 2,123 “martyr” killings, compared with 1,201 in 2012. There were 1,213 such deaths in Syria alone last year, it said.“This is a very minimal count based on what has been reported in the media and we can confirm,” said Frans Veerman, head of research for Open Doors. Estimates by other Christian groups put the annual figure as high as 8,000.

While most Americans are shielded from the true nature of the war by the U.S. media’s reluctance to report on it, Arabic media, websites, and activists daily report and document atrocity after atrocity — beheadings and bombed churches, abducted nuns, Christians slaughtered for refusing to convert to Islam, and countless abducted for ransom or rape — at the hands of those whom the U.S. supports.

It’s enough to point out that “the largest massacre of Christians in Syria,” to quote a top religious leader, was left wholly unreported by any major U.S. news network.
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#28768 Jan 22, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, it is a given, what the Appeals Court ruling was.
Now please tell me what,
"circumstances and events that happened after the fact to the point being argued"
did I add?
The bottom line is, the only thing you know for sure is what the appeals court ruling was, you are clueless to the rest of the story, hearing only what you want hear,and making yourself look foolish trying to convince yourself and everyone else you have a clue about what you are talking about.
I didn't WANT to hear anything. The decision was what the decision was and it was based on the actions of Obama. You adding your little footnotes of why Obama did what he did is irrelevant. That's like saying a jury finding a man guilty of murder should have their decision thrown out because they had no idea the man killed was sleeping with the killers wife. Or as you would put it "the circumstances leading up to his decision to pull the trigger". It doesn't matter because as long as you, your views, and the people you support who share your views are shed in a negative light, you will continue to make excuses in order to make things right in your mind.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#28769 Jan 22, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't WANT to hear anything. The decision was what the decision was and it was based on the actions of Obama. You adding your little footnotes of why Obama did what he did is irrelevant. That's like saying a jury finding a man guilty of murder should have their decision thrown out because they had no idea the man killed was sleeping with the killers wife. Or as you would put it "the circumstances leading up to his decision to pull the trigger". It doesn't matter because as long as you, your views, and the people you support who share your views are shed in a negative light, you will continue to make excuses in order to make things right in your mind.
Tell me something , what did Obama do that made his recess appointment unconstitutional ? What was different in what he did and what has been done over the last 100 + years.

“Frankly my dear...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#28770 Jan 22, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankly Scarlett, you don't have to be educated to be smart.
Frankly Barney, discernment and wisdom are much more becoming than professing education and 'smarts'.
"Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something."
Discernment reveals who's who.

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
should I let my 14 year old daughter shave her ... (Jun '10) 3 hr Angela 51
taco casa waitresses 4 hr girl 4
school parking at church 6 hr parent 15
McDonald's 8 hr johnboy 11
What's being done to slow down the stealing? 9 hr NOSEY neighbor 9
t h 10 hr really 2
Information on Storage Units. 20 hr Citizen 4
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'?