Duck Dynasty Member Suspended From TV...
pretend to be smart

Utica, NY

#62 Dec 31, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Loving v Virginia was based on race. Same sex marriage is based on sexual preference. I can prove genetically that a person is caucasian or black. As of today there is no genetic marker for homosexuality. Allowing a black person to marry a white person is completely different than allowing a same sex couple to marry unless you are saying that we must now allow any person(s) with a sexual preference outside the cultural norm marry because they have a "right" to. As an aside you need to realize that many in the minority community hate that gays and their advocates use the civil rights struggle to try to make their point. They see it as an insult. Using Loving v Virginia does that.
As I said before, our laws are ripe with examples of relationships that society as a whole has decided don't qualify for marriage. Mothers and grown sons, Fathers and grown daughters, first cousins...... They are all heterosexual relationships with partners past the age of consent that don't qualify for a "right" to marry under the law. Under your definition they would also be afforded that same "human right" to marriage wouldn't they?. They aren't so to say that there is a universal human right marry under the law is just incorrect.
I want you to take note of a few things. I don't use bestiality in my opinion nor do I use marriage to children as many same sex marriage opponents do. It's because I don't think they are relevant and there are plenty of examples of relationships between consenting adults that are prohibited from culminating in marriage and because consent is key. Again, there is no universal "human right" to marriage.
Wrong again. I never made mention to race or anything else. I only rebutted your lame comment that there is no right to marriage when in fact the SCOTUS ruled there was.

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law"

the basis of the Loving case revolved around racial discrimination with respect to marriage but the ruling itself started off with classifying "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," That is the key to why you are wrong.

As always, you over analyzed it because you're pretending to be intelligent...
Not A Fan

Utica, NY

#63 Dec 31, 2013
I hate D D.
you said a lot

Utica, NY

#64 Dec 31, 2013
But would you let him hook up with your 15 year old daughter?
Truth

Utica, NY

#65 Dec 31, 2013
pretend to be smart wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. I never made mention to race or anything else. I only rebutted your lame comment that there is no right to marriage when in fact the SCOTUS ruled there was.
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of manTo deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law"," fundamental to our very existence and survival....
the basis of the Loving case revolved around racial discrimination with respect to marriage but the ruling itself started off with classifying "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," That is the key to why you are wrong.
As always, you over analyzed it because you're pretending to be intelligent...
What? You never mentioned race?
Loving v Virginia is based on race. It has to do with inter-racial marriage. It is also about heterosexual marriage. It is that a black man has the right to marry a white woman. It is that a white man has the right to marry a black woman. What it is not is a blanket pronouncement that men(or women) have the right to marry anyone they are attracted to based on their sexual preference. There is a difference.

If marriage is a basic civil right of man then how do you explain all of the exceptions that I mentioned? How about that in New York a marriage between mentally challenged people (or one mentally challenged person and one normal) may be annulled at the request of family members? How about an 18 year old nephew. Is he allowed to marry his aunt? Under your theory he would. I could go on with many more examples but the point has been made. There is no universal right to marry and that's not what Loving v Virginia shows.

I'm not pretending to be smart. I have opinions. My opinions are based on how I read the facts. It's called thinking. Some people actually do that rather than just accepting the edicts of others as gospel.

Let's also take a look at your quote from Chief Justice Warren:," fundamental to our very existence and survival....
Read the entire thing again in the context of the case that was being decided. He's talking about procreation, you know - reproduction. He's saying that to limit a person's right to marry based on race, limits a person's right to reproduce. He's not saying that we as a society must accept marriage based on sexual preference. When you peel away all of the layers that is what same sex marriage is. That's not a moral or religious opinion. It's a physiological fact.
Truth

Utica, NY

#66 Dec 31, 2013
Not A Fan wrote:
I hate D D.
Then don't watch. Don't buy the products. This is America.
Truth

Utica, NY

#67 Dec 31, 2013
you said a lot wrote:
But would you let him hook up with your 15 year old daughter?
I would not.
That's not what he was suspended for though. He was suspended for his opinion of same sex marriage based on his religious convictions and for his observations about the black people he grew up with.

If you don't like what he says and stands for then don't watch the show, don't buy the merchandise and don't buy products from the sponsors of the show.
Amitaba

Utica, NY

#68 Dec 31, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I would not.
That's not what he was suspended for though. He was suspended for his opinion of same sex marriage based on his religious convictions and for his observations about the black people he grew up with.
If you don't like what he says and stands for then don't watch the show, don't buy the merchandise and don't buy products from the sponsors of the show.
And if you own the network, fire his asz. Which is what they did. Don't you like capitalism? What's your point, anyway?
El Creepo

Utica, NY

#69 Jan 1, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Then don't watch. Don't buy the products. This is America.
I don't.

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#70 Jan 2, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I greed with your post until you got to what you said is a right to marry.
There is no right to get married. If there were a right then mothers could marry grown sons, fathers and grown daughters, sisters and brothers of age, first cousins of age, mentally handicapped couples..........
Ther are many types of relationships that society has decided do not qualify for marrige. If there was right to marry none of these prohibitions would exist. Please take note of the fact that I excluded beastiality and children marrying from my examples. That's because I believe consent is essential.
Your original contention was (and I quote directly from your post),

"There is no right to get married. If there were a right then mothers could marry grown sons, fathers and grown daughters, sisters and brothers of age, first cousins of age, mentally handicapped couples.........."

Justice Warren in "Loving v Virginia" stated (again a direct quote),

“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man".

It is a common misconception that "rights" can't be limited or abridged. Without exception every "right" granted in the constitution has been limited by law. Basically your "rights" are limited when they begin to interfere with the "rights" of others.
Truth

Utica, NY

#71 Jan 2, 2014
JusticeDefiled13501 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your original contention was (and I quote directly from your post),
"There is no right to get married. If there were a right then mothers could marry grown sons, fathers and grown daughters, sisters and brothers of age, first cousins of age, mentally handicapped couples.........."
Justice Warren in "Loving v Virginia" stated (again a direct quote),
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man".
It is a common misconception that "rights" can't be limited or abridged. Without exception every "right" granted in the constitution has been limited by law. Basically your "rights" are limited when they begin to interfere with the "rights" of others.
I agree and until very recently same sex marriage was on that list of relationships based on sexual preference that was excluded from marriage. To the second part of your comment, aren't you interfering with the "rights" of others when you outlaw marriage between mothers and their sons(past the age of consent)? Father and daughter(past the age of consent)? Aunts and nephews(past the age of consent)? Uncles and nieces(past the age of consent)?........ Those are all examples of relationships based on a sexual preference involving people past the age of consent and yet it is illegal for them to marry. I'm not advocating for that at all but if there is a right to marry and sexual preference doesn't matter ten why wouldn't they be included as well?

Loving v Virginia was a race based case. Same-sex marriage was never contemplated. There is a big difference between physiological differences and differences in sexual preferences. Loving v Virginia involves the former and same-sex marriage involves the latter.

There is no "right" to marry. If there were then all manner of heterosexual relationships between adults past the age of consent would be included. They are not.
Truth

Utica, NY

#72 Jan 2, 2014
Amitaba wrote:
<quoted text> And if you own the network, fire his asz. Which is what they did. Don't you like capitalism? What's your point, anyway?
I love capitalism. It was capitalism that got him reinstated. The public who financially support A&E and the sponsors of "Duck Dynasty" made their feelings known. Capitalism won out over a special interest(GLAAD) and political correctness. If the consumers hadn't spoken out in the numbers they did then he would not have been reinstated. What part of that did you not understand?
Amitaba

Utica, NY

#73 Jan 2, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I love capitalism. It was capitalism that got him reinstated. The public who financially support A&E and the sponsors of "Duck Dynasty" made their feelings known. Capitalism won out over a special interest(GLAAD) and political correctness. If the consumers hadn't spoken out in the numbers they did then he would not have been reinstated. What part of that did you not understand?
I understand all the above. What I don't understand is why you celebrate the triumph of ignorance and racism. You right wing stooges wear your ignorance as a badge of honor. Do you agree with the red neck, that blacks were better off under Jim Crow? Of course he has a right to shoot his mouth off. How come when I disagree with this stupidity I am being "politically correct" ? Stupid is stupid!

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#74 Jan 2, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree and until very recently same sex marriage was on that list of relationships based on sexual preference that was excluded from marriage. To the second part of your comment, aren't you interfering with the "rights" of others when you outlaw marriage between mothers and their sons(past the age of consent)? Father and daughter(past the age of consent)? Aunts and nephews(past the age of consent)? Uncles and nieces(past the age of consent)?........ Those are all examples of relationships based on a sexual preference involving people past the age of consent and yet it is illegal for them to marry. I'm not advocating for that at all but if there is a right to marry and sexual preference doesn't matter ten why wouldn't they be included as well?
Loving v Virginia was a race based case. Same-sex marriage was never contemplated. There is a big difference between physiological differences and differences in sexual preferences. Loving v Virginia involves the former and same-sex marriage involves the latter.
There is no "right" to marry. If there were then all manner of heterosexual relationships between adults past the age of consent would be included. They are not.
First, I want to thank you for your civil response. They are few and far between on Topix.

According to Justice Warren, there is a "right" to marry. That is what he said in his written opinion in Loving v Virginia. I agree that this case involved race based marriage, however the "right" to marriage was determined in this case. If you read carefully Justice Warren's statement, he didn't say that marriage was a right dependent on certain circumstances, he said “ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man". Although the case addressed racial marriages, he didn't quantify the "right" to marry based on race alone. He stated that marriage was a "basic civil right". Unless the courts rule that same sex couples CANNOT marry, they still possess this "basic civil right".

As far as your statement, "If there were then all manner of heterosexual relationships between adults past the age of consent would be included", that still hasn't been determined. I'm sure if polygamist brought their case to the Supreme Court they would probably find some support with the current sitting judges. Although, I am curious to know what exactly you meant by "all manner of heterosexual relationships". What other manner are there that are not allowed?
Truth

Utica, NY

#75 Jan 2, 2014
Amitaba wrote:
<quoted text> I understand all the above. What I don't understand is why you celebrate the triumph of ignorance and racism. You right wing stooges wear your ignorance as a badge of honor. Do you agree with the red neck, that blacks were better off under Jim Crow? Of course he has a right to shoot his mouth off. How come when I disagree with this stupidity I am being "politically correct" ? Stupid is stupid!
I celebrate freedom of speech and freedom of religion over political correctness.

Let me enlighten you regarding what he actually said because you obviously got your version from MSNBC(or equal).

In the GQ interview Phil Robertson relayed his memories of growing up in pre-civil rights Louisiana. This was his memory of what he witnessed and not a racist rant:

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say,‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/20...

Do you get it better now? Do you get that he was talking about his personal experience growing up and not making a blanket statement about all blacks?

You are not being politically correct. Just ignorant of the relevant facts is all.

Just so you know. Conservative people are no more a homogeneous block of completely like minded people than liberals are. Let me ask you. Regardless of your feelings about Sarah Palin(I'm not a fan), do you agree with Martin Bashir's comment that someone should defecate in her mouth? How about when Ed Shultz called Laura Ingraham a right-wing slut? Did you agree with that? How about all of the vitriol spewed by a variety of commentators and their guests on MSNBC every night? Do you agree with 100% of that? If you do then you are an idiot. If you don't then you realize that agreeing with someone on a particular issue doesn't mean that you agree with everything that they've ever said. Obviously not everyone agrees with everything Phil Robertson said and before you express your disagreement again you should probably make yourself aware of what he actually did say.
Truth

Utica, NY

#76 Jan 2, 2014
JusticeDefiled13501 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I want to thank you for your civil response. They are few and far between on Topix.
According to Justice Warren, there is a "right" to marry. That is what he said in his written opinion in Loving v Virginia. I agree that this case involved race based marriage, however the "right" to marriage was determined in this case. If you read carefully Justice Warren's statement, he didn't say that marriage was a right dependent on certain circumstances, he said “ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man". Although the case addressed racial marriages, he didn't quantify the "right" to marry based on race alone. He stated that marriage was a "basic civil right". Unless the courts rule that same sex couples CANNOT marry, they still possess this "basic civil right".
As far as your statement, "If there were then all manner of heterosexual relationships between adults past the age of consent would be included", that still hasn't been determined. I'm sure if polygamist brought their case to the Supreme Court they would probably find some support with the current sitting judges. Although, I am curious to know what exactly you meant by "all manner of heterosexual relationships". What other manner are there that are not allowed?
Your understanding of Loving v Virginia lacks context. You have to read the entire decision and not just cherry pick the "basic civil rights of man" part. When you do that you'll understand the difference. That difference being that first, the decision ended all race based restrictions on marriage and second, that the physiological(genetic) differences between blacks and whites are much different than sexual preference. Here's the entire quote in context:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

It talks about racial classifications(that can be genetically identified, unlike homosexuality) and about our existence and survival. That would be procreation he's referring to in the latter part.

Taking that into consideration do you still believe that same sex marriage was contemplated or somehow inferred in coming to the conclusion they did? I don't think so. I also think that trying to equate the civil rights struggles of black Americans with the effort to gain acceptance of same sex marriages is an insult to black Americans. When you cite Loving v Virginia in your advocacy of same sex marriage that is what you are doing.

"all manner of heterosexual relationships"
It certainly has been determined.
According the New York State rules for marriage:
"Familial Restrictions
A marriage may not take place in New York State between an ancestor and descendant, siblings (full or half blood), an uncle and niece or nephew or an aunt and niece or nephew, regardless of whether or not these persons are legitimate or illegitimate offspring."
http://www.health.ny.gov/publications/4210/

The list is almost endless of heterosexual relationships that society has decided to exempt from marriage. I named some in a couple of previous posts but certainly not all. The list goes on and on. It illustrates that there is no "basic human right to marry" based on a sexual preference. Otherwise wouldn't all hetero and homosexual couples past the age of consent have the right to marry?
Amitaba

Utica, NY

#77 Jan 2, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I celebrate freedom of speech and freedom of religion over political correctness.
Let me enlighten you regarding what he actually said because you obviously got your version from MSNBC(or equal).
In the GQ interview Phil Robertson relayed his memories of growing up in pre-civil rights Louisiana. This was his memory of what he witnessed and not a racist rant:
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say,‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/20...
Do you get it better now? Do you get that he was talking about his personal experience growing up and not making a blanket statement about all blacks?
You are not being politically correct. Just ignorant of the relevant facts is all.
Just so you know. Conservative people are no more a homogeneous block of completely like minded people than liberals are. Let me ask you. Regardless of your feelings about Sarah Palin(I'm not a fan), do you agree with Martin Bashir's comment that someone should defecate in her mouth? How about when Ed Shultz called Laura Ingraham a right-wing slut? Did you agree with that? How about all of the vitriol spewed by a variety of commentators and their guests on MSNBC every night? Do you agree with 100% of that? If you do then you are an idiot. If you don't then you realize that agreeing with someone on a particular issue doesn't mean that you agree with everything that they've ever said. Obviously not everyone agrees with everything Phil Robertson said and before you express your disagreement again you should probably make yourself aware of what he actually did say.
What Bashir said about Palin is disgusting. That's why , unlike you, I won't waste my time defending it. I am aware of what this Duck fella said. And if you can't see the ignorance and racism in the above quote, you are an idiot. Yes, we do have the right to be stupid in America. My question is, why are you not accused of political correctness, in disapproving of Bashir's comments .But, I am supposed to respect this dumb Louisiana cracker for dismissing a hundred years of Jim Crow oppression? And don't you think that his comparing homosexuality to " beastiality" on a par with pooping in someone's mouth? No, of course you don't. Beecause you are a right wing hack, without the character to admit it. Please comment on Limbaugh calling SAndra Fluke a "slut", for simply exercising her civic rights.
Next pres

United States

#78 Jan 2, 2014
Amitaba wrote:
<quoted text> What Bashir said about Palin is disgusting. That's why , unlike you, I won't waste my time defending it. I am aware of what this Duck fella said. And if you can't see the ignorance and racism in the above quote, you are an idiot. Yes, we do have the right to be stupid in America. My question is, why are you not accused of political correctness, in disapproving of Bashir's comments .But, I am supposed to respect this dumb Louisiana cracker for dismissing a hundred years of Jim Crow oppression? And don't you think that his comparing homosexuality to " beastiality" on a par with pooping in someone's mouth? No, of course you don't. Beecause you are a right wing hack, without the character to admit it. Please comment on Limbaugh calling SAndra Fluke a "slut", for simply exercising her civic rights.
. Phil for president !!!! Who's with me?
Truth

Herkimer, NY

#79 Jan 2, 2014
Amitaba wrote:
<quoted text> What Bashir said about Palin is disgusting. That's why , unlike you, I won't waste my time defending it. I am aware of what this Duck fella said. And if you can't see the ignorance and racism in the above quote, you are an idiot. Yes, we do have the right to be stupid in America. My question is, why are you not accused of political correctness, in disapproving of Bashir's comments .But, I am supposed to respect this dumb Louisiana cracker for dismissing a hundred years of Jim Crow oppression? And don't you think that his comparing homosexuality to " beastiality" on a par with pooping in someone's mouth? No, of course you don't. Beecause you are a right wing hack, without the character to admit it. Please comment on Limbaugh calling SAndra Fluke a "slut", for simply exercising her civic rights.
I'm not sure I can explain any better than I have. To you anyway. Your posts are very disjointed and certainly not very well thought out. As for "I am supposed to respect this dumb Louisiana cracker for dismissing a hundred years of Jim Crow oppression?" you obviously either didn't read what he said or you didn't understand it. I'm not sure what I can do about that.

Your post lumps all conservative leaning people together as though everyone completely agrees with everything that Phil Robertson said in that interview. I can assure you that isn't true just as it isn't true that every liberal American completely agrees with Martin Bashir, Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow....... What I said is that if one blindly agrees with everything that comes out of anyone's mouth they are an idiot.

I don't like Rush Limbaugh. I don't agree with his characterazation of Sandra Fluke. I don't agree with her on who should pay for contraception. I do support her right to say what she did. I think Limbaugh's comment was out of line and I think he may have lost sponsors and some audience as a result. I think he was throwing some red meat to his core audience just like left wing commentators do.
Truth

Herkimer, NY

#80 Jan 2, 2014
Amitaba wrote:
<quoted text> What Bashir said about Palin is disgusting. That's why , unlike you, I won't waste my time defending it. I am aware of what this Duck fella said. And if you can't see the ignorance and racism in the above quote, you are an idiot. Yes, we do have the right to be stupid in America. My question is, why are you not accused of political correctness, in disapproving of Bashir's comments .But, I am supposed to respect this dumb Louisiana cracker for dismissing a hundred years of Jim Crow oppression? And don't you think that his comparing homosexuality to " beastiality" on a par with pooping in someone's mouth? No, of course you don't. Beecause you are a right wing hack, without the character to admit it. Please comment on Limbaugh calling SAndra Fluke a "slut", for simply exercising her civic rights.
Where is the racism in what he said?
he was recounting what he witnessed and the way he witnessed it in his youth. That's not racist. It's called recollection.

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#81 Jan 3, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
It talks about racial classifications(that can be genetically identified, unlike homosexuality) and about our existence and survival. That would be procreation he's referring to in the latter part.
Taking that into consideration do you still believe that same sex marriage was contemplated or somehow inferred in coming to the conclusion they did? I don't think so. I also think that trying to equate the civil rights struggles of black Americans with the effort to gain acceptance of same sex marriages is an insult to black Americans. When you cite Loving v Virginia in your advocacy of same sex marriage that is what you are doing.
"all manner of heterosexual relationships"
It certainly has been determined.
According the New York State rules for marriage:
"Familial Restrictions
A marriage may not take place in New York State between an ancestor and descendant, siblings (full or half blood), an uncle and niece or nephew or an aunt and niece or nephew, regardless of whether or not these persons are legitimate or illegitimate offspring."
http://www.health.ny.gov/publications/4210/
The list is almost endless of heterosexual relationships that society has decided to exempt from marriage. I named some in a couple of previous posts but certainly not all. The list goes on and on. It illustrates that there is no "basic human right to marry" based on a sexual preference. Otherwise wouldn't all hetero and homosexual couples past the age of consent have the right to marry?
The idea that two people can interpret a statement two different ways is what keeps us lawyers in business. It is also the reason we have courts; to decide what the originator actually intend to say. My reading (and many others agree) of this decision clearly shows that what Justice Warren was saying is that: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... He doesn’t quantify this statement at all. He just states that it is a basic civil right. Later he says that because this is a basic civil right, the government cannot restrict the right based on racial classifications. Later courts have determined that it also cannot be restricted based on gender.
As far as restricting this basic civil right, all rights contained in the constitution are restricted at some pint. We have the right to free speech but not the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. We have the right to life but not if the courts decide to end it due to crimes committed and the death penalty imposed. We have the right to express our freedom of religion but not in government buildings and schools. We have the right to bear arms but only certain arms. The list is endless. Limiting rights does not mean that they don’t exist. Courts have been limiting rights since the Bill of Rights was passed.
Because the courts have determined that certain marriages were prohibited due to medical or other reasons, this doesn’t lessen the fact that it is still a “basic civil right”.

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.

Utica Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Home and Car Robberies 7 min cos 3
Gordon's Tap Room 28 min Bozo 11
Name all the Pension padder, county fraud workers 40 min Benji 39
aly 2 hr all her kids 1
How to beat the upcoming NYS vehicle inspection... 3 hr Hidingbehindtinte... 11
Michael "Sosa been stackin" Austin (Jan '14) 3 hr Vanilla ice 11
WKTV (Same as it ever was) (Sep '11) 4 hr DinkDink 75

Utica Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Utica Mortgages