Comments
28,701 - 28,720 of 58,148 Comments Last updated 8 min ago

“Smarter Than You”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29813
Dec 6, 2012
 
sevenSecrets wrote:
<quoted text>fanatical and extremist muslims declaring holy war on America and believing that their martydom was justified.
Hate always finds a way there seven....free flow of information is the biggest enemy for muslims....their women are saying hmmmm....why can't I GO TO SCHOOL? WHY CAN'T I DRIVE? Why can't I be a DOCTOR?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29814
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

emlu wrote:
<quoted text>It's OK waco, before the election, I was told to post links to support my opinion, now it's give an opinion on my links. So, I have decided to post links that support my opinion. I find it less repetitive.
To hard to do both? I do not ask for a link to all opinions,mostly if you make a firm claim that sounds false.
Clearly you cannot even comprehend what the hell I am talking about. This is not that complicated.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29815
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

sevenSecrets wrote:
<quoted text>o my fking god bacon, your so clever. Like I give a damn about my grammar after working on a thesis for 2 hrs.
Work two more years and you may learn the difference in grammar and spelling. I questioned your spelling, not your grammar.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29816
Dec 6, 2012
 
waco1909 wrote:
<quoted text> I'm rebutting your ignorant claim! I SAID it was because DEMARK doesn't put all their citizens in jail for BULLSHIT drug offenses! Got it?
That is not exactly rebutting my claim, it is another claim.
If you were actually rebutting my claim, you would be giving reasons my claim is incorrect.
I know debating is really complicated.

So please clarify your claim. Are the drug laws more lax there, or are they just not putting people in jail for breaking the law?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29817
Dec 6, 2012
 
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>It's OK waco, before the election, I was told to post links to support my opinion, now it's give an opinion on my links. So, I have decided to post links that support my opinion. I find it less repetitive.
So am I to assume every statement in articles or links you post are of you exact opinion?
Again, I would never let anyone else speak for me in such a way. I can speak for myself. It is so sad you cannot.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29818
Dec 6, 2012
 
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
I hopped over here and just about missed your post because your picture is gone?? First, we're not talking about every other country on the planet, we're discussing the U.S. Secondly, if I must be honest, I don't always reply to Taxpayer because I don't understand his posts. Doesn't mean he's wrong, just means I don't understand and he got a little testy with me one time about gun safety and I decided to leave him alone. As for his party affiliation, I haven't figured that out either, so your guess is as good as mine. Mike, this is how I feel and if you feel the need, you can name it a new "ism". Ownership of property is not just my yard, car or home, it's the money I worked for that I own. It's mine, therefore IMO, it's my property. When I'm told by the government that a group of people make too much money, or have acquired too much money and they need to tax them a "little more" to help our country through no fault of the citizens that didn't make the tax laws to begin with, spent our money like drunken sailors and now owe other countries and are having to print money, why does anyone need to "pay a little more"? If the new "paying a little more" doesn't work; what's next, pay a little more, pay a little more etc. Let's be real here, there's the haves, the kind of haves and the have nots. I think all classes should pay a flat tax and be done with it. Back to the communism thing, when people work hard and manage to make a decent life for themselves, only in the U.S. are you punished for it through taxation. This is so all the perks and programs of the politicians and people that own them get pushed through. If these politicians and their buddies that bought them like these programs, tax the heck out of them and leave my money alone. While we're at it, when a government can force you to buy a commodity of ANY KIND i.e. healthcare or punish you again through penalities or taxation, what's next? When did our government get bold enough to tell us how to spend our money that we made and paid taxes on? That's not called freedom, it's called taking from one class and giving to another, so everybody will be equal. Well quess what, everybody's not equal financially and that's not my problem. Where will government intervention stop in our lives?
Where will it stop? Who knows, but acting like this relatively small intervention compared to many other countries is communism, makes the word lose its real meaning. Just as how you compare taxation to ownership by the government.
I know we are talking about America, but when doing so, I use other countries to compare for perspective.
I think no one is raising taxes because they claim some make "too much". The claim is, "they make enough to pay more". Seems republicans keep getting this confused.
Keep in mind, the tax rate has lowered drastically in the past fifty years, so a small increase for a few is not reversing the overall lower tax rate of yesteryear. Tweaking always must be done to balance the budget. And keep in mind, republicans voted for much of the spending that needs to be paid down.
Also keep in mind, Democrats are on board for compromise in cuts versus taxes. Again, balance is key.
The theory is, spending must be more in times of recession, to boost or at least stabilize the economy. And the spending did make it relatively stable compared to the drastic downturn during Bush.
The theory is, pay down the debt in the good times and spend in the bad. Bush and the republican congress failed to pay down the debt in the good times, and spent to much. Basically, he failed to save for a rainy day. This is common, and I think this is what needs to always be focused on. Next time the economy is well, that is when the clamp should be put on spending. If this happened, no tax hikes would be needed.
Republicans helped make this bed they now refuse to sleep in.
Thanks for posting some good substance here.

“Smarter Than You”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29819
Dec 6, 2012
 
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>That is not exactly rebutting my claim, it is another claim.
If you were actually rebutting my claim, you would be giving reasons my claim is incorrect.
I know debating is really complicated.
So please clarify your claim. Are the drug laws more lax there, or are they just not putting people in jail for breaking the law?
71 per one hundred thousand to 715 per one hundred thousand....I don't know dude, what do you think?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29820
Dec 6, 2012
 
waco1909 wrote:
<quoted text> Religion flew those planes into the WTC? Thought it was a bunch of fanatical Saudis...People always gonna find a reason to justify their evil....
I feel it was religion foremost. The Saudi Muslims were brainwashed by blind belief in god, that martyrdom would be rewarded in the afterlife.
They believed America was infringing upon their religious lifestyle, which the Koran demands one must fight to the death to keep.
We are infidels in their eyes.
Without the religious belief, they would be far less likely to have done what they did. Religion is the tool for war, and this is a perfect example. Ignore and deny it at your peril.

The bible speaks of war for martyrdom also. It commands one to kill infidels also. And many did all throughout history, in the Judeo/Christian gods name. It is claimed in the bible and documented in the history books. It is still happening in Africa today. The lords resistance army.

So when Christians deny 9/11 had anything to do with religion, it reeks of protectionism of their own faith.

If you do not understand the problem, you will never be able to find solutions for them.
Promoting blind faith only emboldens and justifies them. Protecting religion from scrutiny is part of the problem. This is why I speak out on religion. So when I see you guys run from the scrutiny, it shows me why we have a problem.
I have no doubt the 9/11 terrorists also refused to debate their beliefs.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29821
Dec 6, 2012
 
waco1909 wrote:
<quoted text> 71 per one hundred thousand to 715 per one hundred thousand....I don't know dude, what do you think?
Again, I am asking you what you think.I am not even sure what the stat is about, as you did not say.

I have stated several times our drug laws are draconian and cause more problems than they fix. Not sure of their laws, so I am asking you what policies are contributing to the situation there? Your vague posts just confuse me.

Also, I think religion has much to do with it, religion has a lot to do with draconian drug laws.
One must look at the root problem to find solutions.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29822
Dec 6, 2012
 
waco1909 wrote:
<quoted text> Hate always finds a way there seven....free flow of information is the biggest enemy for muslims....their women are saying hmmmm....why can't I GO TO SCHOOL? WHY CAN'T I DRIVE? Why can't I be a DOCTOR?
As I claimed, religion suppresses women.

And yes, information is key. This is why I urge you to discuss your own beliefs of god. You see, every religious person feels his faith is not of harm. So when you call out Islam, you may wish to consider they will not listen to you, as you will not listen to me about faith. Set an example or just look hypocritical.

Note the Christians here that have been claiming Christianity does not suppress women. Well the Muslims might just feel the same about their treatment of women. It is all denial.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29823
Dec 6, 2012
 
waco1909 wrote:
<quoted text> Hate always finds a way there seven....free flow of information is the biggest enemy for muslims....their women are saying hmmmm....why can't I GO TO SCHOOL? WHY CAN'T I DRIVE? Why can't I be a DOCTOR?
Maybe their Koran says something like the bibles passage about not allowing women to teach.
If you think about it, they are just following their religion more strictly than many modern Christians.
And no, that is not good to do.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29824
Dec 6, 2012
 
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I feel it was religion foremost. The Saudi Muslims were brainwashed by blind belief in god, that martyrdom would be rewarded in the afterlife.
They believed America was infringing upon their religious lifestyle, which the Koran demands one must fight to the death to keep.
We are infidels in their eyes.
Without the religious belief, they would be far less likely to have done what they did. Religion is the tool for war, and this is a perfect example. Ignore and deny it at your peril.
The bible speaks of war for martyrdom also. It commands one to kill infidels also. And many did all throughout history, in the Judeo/Christian gods name. It is claimed in the bible and documented in the history books. It is still happening in Africa today. The lords resistance army.
So when Christians deny 9/11 had anything to do with religion, it reeks of protectionism of their own faith.
If you do not understand the problem, you will never be able to find solutions for them.
Promoting blind faith only emboldens and justifies them. Protecting religion from scrutiny is part of the problem. This is why I speak out on religion. So when I see you guys run from the scrutiny, it shows me why we have a problem.
I have no doubt the 9/11 terrorists also refused to debate their beliefs.
Mike, I did a little research and pardon the fact that I can't post any links because I had two power outages within a few minutes and lost the name of the sites.

I wrote this one down there, out of the history of wars the total given was 1763 only 123 were because of religious beliefs and this would be 6.98%. This can be found in Philips and Axelrod's 3 Volume Encylopedia of Wars. I also went to a site by an athiest and while writing down his statistics I had another power outage and didn't get his name . He stated or "ceded" that his statistics are closer to 16% of wars being because of religion. I didn't get a chance to read either sites' opinion of 9/11. However today as I was the news regarding the lunatic in Syria threatening to nerve gas his own people, I haven't heard anything about religion mentioned. Not saying that's not the reason, just saying I haven't heard it as a reason.

IMO, 9/11 had little to do with religion and more to do with them being pissed at the U.S. I never heard the attack on the WTC was motivated by religion. I think we would be foolish to disregard there are power, money hungry dictators that are willing to start wars and kill to acquire power, money and land. For example, if the Castro brothers started a war (as if), I know they don't give two hoots in hell about religion, it would be about power and monetary gain. Don't be so quick to blame everything on religion because there are just flat out evil people in this world and they kill or war for a cause bigger than some god they claim to worship.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29825
Dec 6, 2012
 
TSF wrote:
Possibly typical but not all inclusive. Also , I do not believe that religion and science are in conflict in any way. For instance, I see overwhelming evidence of evolution and do not believe that the theory conflicts with scriptures. If God is all powerful, he can use any process he choses to develop species.
The most misguided human individuals in my estimation, are the ones who claim to know the mind of God and to be in possession of the "only true religion". These folks do more damage to their beliefs than they can ever know. On the opposite end of that extreme are those who deny the possibility of existence of God, or anything else for that matter, just because they have not yet seen proof. The first lesson a scientist has to learn is to keep an open mind and to the extent humanly possible, to exclude personal bias in evaluating evidence/results/data/calculat ions/observations.
<quoted text>
Just so you know, I have never denied the possibility of a god existing. I base my view on the likelihood of a god existing. I withhold belief due to the lack of likelihood.
When I say a specific god is a myth, it is more due to the knowns about the god and evidence against the claims of said god.

For example, the god of the bible is said to have created all "kinds" (as in all species) in one day. Science can show massive amounts of evidence that the different kinds of animals came to be in stages of time, not even close to what the bible claims.

This is why literalist believers claim evolution is false. Now if you wish to claim the bible is of metaphor and not literal, your god is not the god I might be talking about.

Now when you speak of understanding the mind of god, I think it is only human to project what the god may be thinking. Any all powerful god would surely understand this human instinct.
The bible describes what god wants, and thus man will project what the god may think. Just as when you try to understand the mind of your mate.

If you cannot comprehend the mind of your god, then just what are you thinking of your god? What is it you think your god does or wants? I am asking, what is the point of belief in your god, if you do not know what he wants or thinks?

If the bible is of metaphor, then would that not mean it is a guide to how god thinks and thus wants you to act?

BTW, most scientists are agnostic. It is the "open minded" way.
I think technically most atheists are agnostic. Most would be open to the idea a god exist, they just withhold belief until evidence or some better reasoning is produced to show likelihood.

I also think many agnostics are also atheist, as they do not believe in a theistic god, they just remain open to the idea a bit more.
Even prominent atheist, Richard Dawkins, when penned down on this, says he is technically agnostic, because he leaves open a .01% chance a god could exist.

So they problem is, the English language is not sufficient in categorizing us to well. I have seen countless debates of the definitions of these terms.

Note, there is no term for the non belief in unicorns. And if one does not see a likelihood they exist, he need not withhold disbelief.

You note scripture, so does that mean you think one source of scripture is more accurate than any others?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29826
Dec 6, 2012
 
TSF wrote:
I am not sure about the amount of scientific knowledge St Thomas Aquinas had, but his statement reveals that he clearly understood why there is a difference between believers and non believers. The church opposition to science has been brutal in the past to protect dogma, which is much different than religion. Much later, Copernicus was deemed a heretic and a fool because he had the audacity to claim that the Earth was not the center of the Universe and that the Earth was revolving around the Sun. Galileo was convicted as a heretic as a result of confirming the ideas of Corponicus and was only post humanously pardoned by the Catholic Church in 1996. Church adherance to dogma has created the carnage, conflict, injustice, horrors,ignorance , etc. That dogma is not religion.
<quoted text>
Not sure what you feel 'religion' means.
Lets look at this first, because otherwise we are just disputing a word.

Wiki,
Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

The Catholic dogma is of the collection of belief systems, it is a cultural system, and is a worldview......
It fits the description of religion perfectly. So saying it is not religion is just denying the definition of the English language.

Now as I noted about atheism and agnosticism, words do not always describe what we think as fully, so we need to come to some understanding of what your perspective of religion is.

Yes, Aquinas did show the differences in mentalities, but he did so poorly in some respects, as I showed. What I do agree about his statement is, many of the religious do not feel a need for answers to the natural world through science due to the idea they already know the answers due to testimonies of scripture.

I think this is dangerous and ignorant,just ask Copernicus and Galileo.

I cannot understand why a religious person would be proud to claim Aquinas's statement as true.

“Smarter Than You”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29827
Dec 6, 2012
 
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Again, I am asking you what you think.I am not even sure what the stat is about, as you did not say.
I have stated several times our drug laws are draconian and cause more problems than they fix. Not sure of their laws, so I am asking you what policies are contributing to the situation there? Your vague posts just confuse me.
Also, I think religion has much to do with it, religion has a lot to do with draconian drug laws.
One must look at the root problem to find solutions.
I don't know dude.Don't have a computer, so I can't get any further into the stats.I'm"assuming"i ts drug related, as our drug laws are draconian,as you said earlier.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29828
Dec 6, 2012
 
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, I did a little research and pardon the fact that I can't post any links because I had two power outages within a few minutes and lost the name of the sites.
I wrote this one down there, out of the history of wars the total given was 1763 only 123 were because of religious beliefs and this would be 6.98%. This can be found in Philips and Axelrod's 3 Volume Encylopedia of Wars. I also went to a site by an athiest and while writing down his statistics I had another power outage and didn't get his name . He stated or "ceded" that his statistics are closer to 16% of wars being because of religion. I didn't get a chance to read either sites' opinion of 9/11. However today as I was the news regarding the lunatic in Syria threatening to nerve gas his own people, I haven't heard anything about religion mentioned. Not saying that's not the reason, just saying I haven't heard it as a reason.
IMO, 9/11 had little to do with religion and more to do with them being pissed at the U.S. I never heard the attack on the WTC was motivated by religion. I think we would be foolish to disregard there are power, money hungry dictators that are willing to start wars and kill to acquire power, money and land. For example, if the Castro brothers started a war (as if), I know they don't give two hoots in hell about religion, it would be about power and monetary gain. Don't be so quick to blame everything on religion because there are just flat out evil people in this world and they kill or war for a cause bigger than some god they claim to worship.
For the record, I never once said all war was of religion, or even close. So I am not sure why you are even arguing this. I do believe many wars are caused by religion, or are at least fuel to prolong wars. I have seen history books that claim more wars were of religious disputes than most historians wish to acknowledge. It is really hard to definitively prove on way or the other.
If you look at the war in Iraq for example, you will see Bush give several different reasons for invasion, at several different times, depending on what was known at the time.
So you can imagine the various historical claims to be made about Iraq down the road.

I am shocked you have never heard the accusation that 9/11 was religious based. I thought at least most people agreed it was a large part of the attack. So to be ignorant of the accusation is mind-blowing.

I will have to do a bit of research to find evidences and claims by the hijackers that show it was religious based.

First, I would like to know why you feel they were so mad at us? I think it is due to our intrusion onto their ways. And the belief of Islam is, all of their ways and traditions are of and for their god. Thus when they feel any intrusion, they are seeing it as an attack on their faith based ways. This is why they use the term 'infidels' to refer to America.

One reason Bin Laden gave for the attack was due to the first gulf war in Iraq. But likely not the way you would think. You see, Bin Laden petitioned Saudi Arabia to allow his(Bin Laden) troops to fight against Saddam for invading Kuwait. Saudi Arabia pushed for the US to invade over Bin Laden. Not sure of all the details on this. Evidently Bin Laden was upset Saddam invaded a sovereign Islamic nation, thus Bin Laden considered him an infidel.
So Bin Laden was Pissed America fought any Muslims in Iraq.
You see, Bin Laden was not upset Saddam was attacked, he was upset due to it being Christians who did it. Thus all about religion.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29829
Dec 6, 2012
 
Snore wrote:
<quoted text>Imo, it's pointless to "debate" with Mike on any front, ESPECIALLY religion. You're wasting your valuable energy on that subject matter. I wonder what the "course" of conversation is during CHRISTMAS feasts are like? I believe Mike is simply addicted to his prejudices period.
Trying to stifle debate on a debate forum?
Contradiction.

Never had a religious debate at a Christmas dinner. Someone asked me last year at the feast if I did not believe in anything(as in a god). I said no, and left it at that.

You see, I try to leave the uncomfortable debates the forums for debate, such as this forum. You see, this is a debate forum, not a pat your buddies on the back forum and coddle the opposition forum. It is a debate forum. Got that? Is this really to hard for you to understand?

“Smarter Than You”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29830
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Trying to stifle debate on a debate forum?
Contradiction.
Never had a religious debate at a Christmas dinner. Someone asked me last year at the feast if I did not believe in anything(as in a god). I said no, and left it at that.
You see, I try to leave the uncomfortable debates the forums for debate, such as this forum. You see, this is a debate forum, not a pat your buddies on the back forum and coddle the opposition forum. It is a debate forum. Got that? Is this really to hard for you to understand?
It says...this is a"forum".Doesn't say"debate"anywhere.

“Smarter Than You”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29831
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Mike your reasons for insisting that everyone on this forum be hostile to each other eludes me.Mike, I try to talk to people on this forum as if they were sitting across from me.Some of the things you've said to me on this forum.....had you have said them to my face....would have resulted in a physical altercation.I feel as though intelligent people should be able to disagree without being insulting or uncivil.What do you think?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29832
Dec 6, 2012
 
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>For the record, I never once said all war was of religion, or even close. So I am not sure why you are even arguing this. I do believe many wars are caused by religion, or are at least fuel to prolong wars. I have seen history books that claim more wars were of religious disputes than most historians wish to acknowledge. It is really hard to definitively prove on way or the other.
If you look at the war in Iraq for example, you will see Bush give several different reasons for invasion, at several different times, depending on what was known at the time.
So you can imagine the various historical claims to be made about Iraq down the road.
I am shocked you have never heard the accusation that 9/11 was religious based. I thought at least most people agreed it was a large part of the attack. So to be ignorant of the accusation is mind-blowing.
I will have to do a bit of research to find evidences and claims by the hijackers that show it was religious based.
First, I would like to know why you feel they were so mad at us? I think it is due to our intrusion onto their ways. And the belief of Islam is, all of their ways and traditions are of and for their god. Thus when they feel any intrusion, they are seeing it as an attack on their faith based ways. This is why they use the term 'infidels' to refer to America.
One reason Bin Laden gave for the attack was due to the first gulf war in Iraq. But likely not the way you would think. You see, Bin Laden petitioned Saudi Arabia to allow his(Bin Laden) troops to fight against Saddam for invading Kuwait. Saudi Arabia pushed for the US to invade over Bin Laden. Not sure of all the details on this. Evidently Bin Laden was upset Saddam invaded a sovereign Islamic nation, thus Bin Laden considered him an infidel.
So Bin Laden was Pissed America fought any Muslims in Iraq.
You see, Bin Laden was not upset Saddam was attacked, he was upset due to it being Christians who did it. Thus all about religion.
Mike, Wiki gives differing reasons than you and maybe that's why I'm confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_...

With that being said, I always thought the attacks were the result of the U.S. not releasing the Blind Sheik, the man that orchestrated the WTC. It's not mind blowing to me that after the attack on the WTC that I would find a correlation between the 9/11 attack and repeated demands for his release because Bin Laden spoke frequently about it.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Raeford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Debate: Health Care - Lumber Bridge, NC Aug 4 SSgt Girard D Gas... 1
Adultery Jul '14 J Thorton 1
Kim Hawks Gentry Jul '14 Jennifer Thorton 1
Andrew Almeida? May '14 Sports fan 1
Andrew Almeida? May '14 Sports fan 1
a Gap in N.C. Law Let Frank Davidson Drive with... (Aug '07) Apr '14 Finally free 133
Debate: Gay Marriage - Hope Mills, NC (Nov '10) Apr '14 SANDRA LOCK 19

Search the Raeford Forum:
•••
•••
Raeford Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Raeford Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Raeford People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Raeford News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Raeford
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••