House Speaker Boehner getting tired of the nuts.

Posted in the New York Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of66
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Opinion

Pine Ridge, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 14, 2013
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/14/te...

Amazing that House Speaker Boehner is getting tired of the extreme rightwing nuts.

Revolt within the Republican Ranks.

Republicans invited the loony's in and played them for votes -- now the baby monster has taken root in the party of whackos.
LA Progressive

Mission Viejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 16, 2013
 
Actually the tea party seem like very nice people. They want a balanced budget, a smaller federal government according to the constitution. They are quite family oriented.

I protest a lot but all of my tea party friends seem to do family events when I go to my protests.
nac

Patchogue, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 16, 2013
 
LA Progressive wrote:
Actually the tea party seem like very nice people. They want a balanced budget, a smaller federal government according to the constitution. They are quite family oriented.
I protest a lot but all of my tea party friends seem to do family events when I go to my protests.
The TEA party do seem like nice people. The want a balanced budget, smaller government, and elimination of wasteful government spending.

The reason that they are attacked by the left and the establishment republicans is because... if you understand economics at all... wasteful government spending and Quantitative Easing are the only thing keeping the economy afloat.

If the masses realized that our economy is a ponzi scheme perpetrated by the (private) Federal Reserve... there would be revolt.

So both parties are working hard to delay the moment when the populace wakes up to the fraud.

Read "Dishonest Money" by Joseph Plummer, then read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin if you want to know how our economy and monetary policy works.
Opinion

Pine Ridge, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 17, 2013
 
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
The TEA party do seem like nice people. The want a balanced budget, smaller government, and elimination of wasteful government spending.
The reason that they are attacked by the left and the establishment republicans is because... if you understand economics at all... wasteful government spending and Quantitative Easing are the only thing keeping the economy afloat.
If the masses realized that our economy is a ponzi scheme perpetrated by the (private) Federal Reserve... there would be revolt.
So both parties are working hard to delay the moment when the populace wakes up to the fraud.
Read "Dishonest Money" by Joseph Plummer, then read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin if you want to know how our economy and monetary policy works.
2007 Global Financial Crisis resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. The housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged.
Causes: The failure of key businesses - triggered by a complex interplay of policies result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street". The 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States.
Solution: The U.S. Federal Reserve and central banks around the world expand money supplies.--- printed more money ----money you had saved was worth less --- prices go up.
The people of the USA paid for the bailouts.
No Democrat, no Republican, no elected official, no Bank official, no government official who was responsible for oversight was held accountable in any manner that I am aware of.
Some bank executives got bonuses out of the bailout money many of the same government officials who were charged with federal oversight are still in place as are the banking executives.

If there is a Grand conspiracy the above comes close.
nac

Patchogue, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 17, 2013
 
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
...
If there is a Grand conspiracy the above comes close.
The banks know that they are "too big to fail" because the politicians that they own tell their "constituents" that they are.

The banks know that they will be bailed out by the taxpayers if they need it.

The banks now have incentive to take irresponsible risks because they have a taxpayer funded safety net.

After a crash, the banks get to buy assets back with our money for pennies on the dollar and reap the profits.

I guess it could be called a conspiracy. But that doesn't matter. The problem is that it is called OUR BANKING SYSTEM!!!

It's great for the banks and bad for the people.

But if you stand up and say it is wrong... you'll be viciously attacked by the zombies on the left and the right.
Opinion

Pine Ridge, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 17, 2013
 
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
The banks know that they are "too big to fail" because the politicians that they own tell their "constituents" that they are.
The banks know that they will be bailed out by the taxpayers if they need it.
The banks now have incentive to take irresponsible risks because they have a taxpayer funded safety net.
After a crash, the banks get to buy assets back with our money for pennies on the dollar and reap the profits.
I guess it could be called a conspiracy. But that doesn't matter. The problem is that it is called OUR BANKING SYSTEM!!!
It's great for the banks and bad for the people.
But if you stand up and say it is wrong... you'll be viciously attacked by the zombies on the left and the right.
We pretty much agree on that.

I know my cash money in the bank is worth about half what it was in 2006.

Although right now I'm labeled as an Obama supporter because I wanted to see something done about healthcare. What we got was politics rather than what we needed. I also sometimes get tired of the constant extremely crazy anti-Obama rhetoric but there is some things I would give him hell about too but that would only add fuel to the hate Obama for any reason, which is a fire burning out of control.

I realize that money controls politics and that I don't have much of voice speaking for me.

It just pisses me off that no one involved was held responsible but people on the bottom lost.

Anyway that's my rant for the day.
nac

Patchogue, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 17, 2013
 
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
... I also sometimes get tired of the constant extremely crazy anti-Obama rhetoric but there is some things I would give him hell about too but that would only add fuel to the hate Obama for any reason, which is a fire burning out of control.
I realize that money controls politics and that I don't have much of voice speaking for me.
It just pisses me off that no one involved was held responsible but people on the bottom lost.
Anyway that's my rant for the day.
The anti-Obama rhetoric is not crazy, it is justified. Just as the rabid anti-Bush rhetoric was justified. They are the same person in different clothes. Both have worked to destroy the Constitution while enriching the big banks, Wall Street, and the military industrial complex.

Both get away with it because everything is so politicized. The country is so divided left & right that most people will scream bloody murder when the other side does something, but look the other way or cheer when their side does the exact same thing.

Until that changes, no one will be held responsible and those on the bottom will ALWAYS lose.
nac

Patchogue, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 17, 2013
 
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Although right now I'm labeled as an Obama supporter because I wanted to see something done about healthcare. What we got was politics rather than what we needed.
You have not been labeled as an Obama supporter "because [you] wanted to see something done about healthcare."

You were labeled as an Obama supporter because you cheered and defended the ACA, while arguing with and belittling those that oppose this disastrous law.

It would be fraud if a private sector CEO knew that millions of customers would lose their insurance, yet repeated the same lie over and over:“If you like your health insurance, you can keep it. Period.”

Yet you defended the lies and the bad law. That is why people think you are an Obama blind follower.

I hope you are not. And I hope you have come to your senses about Obamacare.

It can certainly be argued that something needed to be done about healthcare. But nothing would have been much better than THIS "something."

“2014 ! The Bar is Open !”

Since: Dec 07

a round for all

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

LA Progressive wrote:
Actually the tea party seem like very nice people. They want a balanced budget, a smaller federal government according to the constitution. They are quite family oriented.
I protest a lot but all of my tea party friends seem to do family events when I go to my protests.
they are very nice people; in fact, they just sent Obama 50 cartons of Marlboro's for Christmas. That's more than he'll get from his VP for sure
Opinion

Pine Ridge, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 18, 2013
 
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not been labeled as an Obama supporter "because [you] wanted to see something done about healthcare."
You were labeled as an Obama supporter because you cheered and defended the ACA, while arguing with and belittling those that oppose this disastrous law.
It would be fraud if a private sector CEO knew that millions of customers would lose their insurance, yet repeated the same lie over and over:“If you like your health insurance, you can keep it. Period.”
Yet you defended the lies and the bad law. That is why people think you are an Obama blind follower.
I hope you are not. And I hope you have come to your senses about Obamacare.
It can certainly be argued that something needed to be done about healthcare. But nothing would have been much better than THIS "something."
We could argue about all that but I don't mind being labeled as an Obama supporter or a Bush supporter. I'm more interested in the best bang for dollar spent. I realize that I'm not going to ever see politicians do exactly what I want. But I do like to see movement in a direction.

I have more of a problem with posters who have no idea what is in the ACA and just oppose it for the sake of hating & ranting anti-Obama. If they know what they are talking about and still oppose it fine. Sometimes their reasons are hard for me to comprehend.

I have said a number of times that the ACA mandate is not what I would have preferred. Two main reasons. First it left the insurance companies squarely in the game although it did put some requirements and restrictions on them. They produce nothing but were raking a profit of 30% in addition to all the rest of the stuff they were doing. Dropping coverage etc.

Second the ACA success hinges on getting people to purchase something willingly that in many cases they don't want to spend their money on. They feel bullet proof and have in the past gotten care and not paid the bill. I got their costs passed on to me in a number of ways.

Throw in the never ending attacks by the GOP and Obama haters over anything regarding the ACA whether its truthful or not does not help the ACA to succeed. Note that the GOP has even set up fake websites to cause harm.

Ok, if the ACA is repealed what then? Does the GOP have a realistic plan to replace it or just some minor changes? So far they have offered up nothing.

If the GOP wants to replace the ACA with a not for profit Single Payer System of some type that includes a multitude of ways to pay for all emergency and necessary health care I would support that. I doubt that they will.

Having been involved in major Health and Welfare talks for a nation wide group policy I am well aware of the costs to the employer and the employee with continual reducing benefits and increasing co-pays. Employers and wanting out of the ever increasing costs game that include passed on costs through insurance costs for those who do not pay.

This country is not going to let people die on the street if they don't have insurance or cannot pay. They get treated and those costs get passed on to those who can pay.

I'm all for making people responsible for their own healthcare costs - somehow someway. A mandate to purchase is the toughest way to do it. Having insurance companies taking a profit rake for doing nothing raises costs. A not for profit Single Payer System paid for through a multitude of different taxes to catch everyone would have been the easiest way to cover everyone for the least cost.

What I am against is just blind Obama hate & lies without good reason. If there is something fundamentally wrong with the ACA then fix it. The website was a disaster but it can be fixed and that problem is not a direct problem with the basic foundation principles of the ACA.

I would guess that if the Republicans get in a position to totally repeal the ACA they will not only make small changes..
nac

Patchogue, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 18, 2013
 
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
We could argue about all that but I don't mind being labeled as an Obama supporter or a Bush supporter. I'm more interested in the best bang for dollar spent. I realize that I'm not going to ever see politicians do exactly what I want. But I do like to see movement in a direction.
I have more of a problem with posters who have no idea what is in the ACA and just oppose it for the sake of hating & ranting anti-Obama. If they know what they are talking about and still oppose it fine. Sometimes their reasons are hard for me to comprehend.
I have said a number of times that the ACA mandate is not what I would have preferred. Two main reasons. First it left the insurance companies squarely in the game although it did put some requirements and restrictions on them. They produce nothing but were raking a profit of 30% in addition to all the rest of the stuff they were doing. Dropping coverage etc.
Second the ACA success hinges on getting people to purchase something willingly that in many cases they don't want to spend their money on. They feel bullet proof and have in the past gotten care and not paid the bill. I got their costs passed on to me in a number of ways.
Throw in the never ending attacks by the GOP and Obama haters over anything regarding the ACA whether its truthful or not does not help the ACA to succeed. Note that the GOP has even set up fake websites to cause harm.
Ok, if the ACA is repealed what then? Does the GOP have a realistic plan to replace it or just some minor changes? So far they have offered up nothing.
If the GOP wants to replace the ACA with a not for profit Single Payer System of some type that includes a multitude of ways to pay for all emergency and necessary health care I would support that. I doubt that they will.
Having been involved in major Health and Welfare talks for a nation wide group policy I am well aware of the costs to the employer and the employee with continual reducing benefits and increasing co-pays. Employers and wanting out of the ever increasing costs game that include passed on costs through insurance costs for those who do not pay.
This country is not going to let people die on the street if they don't have insurance or cannot pay. They get treated and those costs get passed on to those who can pay.
I'm all for making people responsible for their own healthcare costs - somehow someway. A mandate to purchase is the toughest way to do it. Having insurance companies taking a profit rake for doing nothing raises costs. A not for profit Single Payer System paid for through a multitude of different taxes to catch everyone would have been the easiest way to cover everyone for the least cost.
What I am against is just blind Obama hate & lies without good reason. If there is something fundamentally wrong with the ACA then fix it. The website was a disaster but it can be fixed and that problem is not a direct problem with the basic foundation principles of the ACA.
I would guess that if the Republicans get in a position to totally repeal the ACA they will not only make small changes..
So you hate when people lie about Obama, but you don't mind when Obama lies about the ACA?

You might want to reconsider that policy. The former are a group of partisan parrots that wield no power. The latter is the leader of the free world. I submit that he should be held to a higher standard than the trolls, not a lesser one.
Nemo

Pine Ridge, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 19, 2013
 
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
So you hate when people lie about Obama, but you don't mind when Obama lies about the ACA?
You might want to reconsider that policy. The former are a group of partisan parrots that wield no power. The latter is the leader of the free world. I submit that he should be held to a higher standard than the trolls, not a lesser one.
Since I was pretty much paying attention to what was in the ACA and had read the final draft of the bill prior to it becoming law, I knew that there would be some existing policies both cancelled by the insurance companies and some new policies just sold that would not meet the ACA requirements. Insurance companies always could cancel a policy just as you can drop a policy. The statement was also made that "you can keep your Doctor" which common sense tells you that if your Doctor dies, moves or just decides to drop you - he can.

I also knew the death panels, and killing grandma were clearly lies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-...

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/15/no_obama_didn...

Yet, I will admit that the general public was hearing something different and what he said should have been clearer.

Yet, what he said does not change the basic principals that would relate to whether the ACA is good or bad as a workable solution to Healthcare. To argue whether the ACA is bad or good has to be determined on the law itself not based on website issues or people not knowing what the ACA actually said about keeping a existing policy in some cases.
Opinion

Pine Ridge, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 19, 2013
 
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
So you hate when people lie about Obama, but you don't mind when Obama lies about the ACA?
You might want to reconsider that policy. The former are a group of partisan parrots that wield no power. The latter is the leader of the free world. I submit that he should be held to a higher standard than the trolls, not a lesser one.
I would agree that he and all people put in a position of honor and trust should be held to a higher standard than the common street thief.

The judicial system of this country is not as "fine" as we like to think it is. Far too often in this country laws are bent, lawyers cook a story, juries fail to do their jobs and last but not least is that Judges are not fair judges. Money and power can purchase a lot including freedom.

In front of the capital in Washington a workable guillotine should be placed with a plaque that says "He who comes here to serve the people will do so honestly or justice will be served here." Prior to each session of Congress, each New Supreme Court Justice session and the election of a President they should be sworn in before that guillotine and the blade dropped to show it still works.
nac

Patchogue, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Dec 19, 2013
 
Nemo wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I was pretty much paying attention to what was in the ACA and had read the final draft of the bill prior to it becoming law, I knew that there would be some existing policies both cancelled by the insurance companies and some new policies just sold that would not meet the ACA requirements. Insurance companies always could cancel a policy just as you can drop a policy. The statement was also made that "you can keep your Doctor" which common sense tells you that if your Doctor dies, moves or just decides to drop you - he can.
I also knew the death panels, and killing grandma were clearly lies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-...
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/15/no_obama_didn...
Yet, I will admit that the general public was hearing something different and what he said should have been clearer.
Yet, what he said does not change the basic principals that would relate to whether the ACA is good or bad as a workable solution to Healthcare. To argue whether the ACA is bad or good has to be determined on the law itself not based on website issues or people not knowing what the ACA actually said about keeping a existing policy in some cases.
In other words, yes, you have no problem defending Obama's lies about the ACA. Fair enough.
Opinion

Pine Ridge, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 19, 2013
 
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, yes, you have no problem defending Obama's lies about the ACA. Fair enough.
If that's your interpretation of what was posted I guess its fair enough. As I said I understood what he was saying when he said it and what the law contained in regards to newly written policies.

To you it was a lie to me it is more of a case of you not knowing what was in the ACA when it was passed into law. You search for and accept any any reason regardless of whether it really is a flaw in the ACA law or a issue in implementation of the law to scream anti-Obama and anti-Obama care rhetoric. You will accept and say nothing about what was without question clear lies told by the extreme right because it suits your political feelings against Obama and the ACA.

There are poorly made statements that can be spun into lies for political purposes and there are clearly lies put out to deceive and fool.

I have asked you a number of times to in detail point out the flaws in the ACA and if repealed what you would propose in place of it, also in detail. I have clearly done both a number of times.

What that tells me is that you really don't have a solution other than the general anti-Obama rhetoric until the extreme right tells you what solution they will take if any.

I realize that I have gotten under your skin and now you are at the point of trying to find some minor points to make yourself feel right about. If you wish to think Obama is a liar to a greater extent that the GOP lies -- so be it.
nac

Patchogue, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Dec 19, 2013
 
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's your interpretation of what was posted I guess its fair enough. As I said I understood what he was saying when he said it and what the law contained in regards to newly written policies.
To you it was a lie to me it is more of a case of you not knowing what was in the ACA when it was passed into law. You search for and accept any any reason regardless of whether it really is a flaw in the ACA law or a issue in implementation of the law to scream anti-Obama and anti-Obama care rhetoric. You will accept and say nothing about what was without question clear lies told by the extreme right because it suits your political feelings against Obama and the ACA.
There are poorly made statements that can be spun into lies for political purposes and there are clearly lies put out to deceive and fool.
I have asked you a number of times to in detail point out the flaws in the ACA and if repealed what you would propose in place of it, also in detail. I have clearly done both a number of times.
What that tells me is that you really don't have a solution other than the general anti-Obama rhetoric until the extreme right tells you what solution they will take if any.
I realize that I have gotten under your skin and now you are at the point of trying to find some minor points to make yourself feel right about. If you wish to think Obama is a liar to a greater extent that the GOP lies -- so be it.
I just find it hypocritical that you are deeply offended when some nobody lies about Obama, but you have no problem at all when the President of the United States lies to the American people to gain support for a law.

Obama said, "If you like you plan, you can keep your plan. Period."

He knew that wasn't true. He said it to mislead people into thinking that the law was something that it was not. That is a lie.

Can you explain to me why that isn't a lie or how I have "spun it into a lie?
Opinion

Pine Ridge, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 19, 2013
 
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
I just find it hypocritical that you are deeply offended when some nobody lies about Obama, but you have no problem at all when the President of the United States lies to the American people to gain support for a law.
Obama said, "If you like you plan, you can keep your plan. Period."
He knew that wasn't true. He said it to mislead people into thinking that the law was something that it was not. That is a lie.
Can you explain to me why that isn't a lie or how I have "spun it into a lie?
I'm not "deeply offended" when posters on this board or radio talk jocks lie. I start to get more concerned when the Fair and Balanced News starts spreading clear lies or when elected Congressmen start clearly spreading lies.

As to Obama saying "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period". I believe that I posted up two links for you to read along with my thought on the matter. You are more than welcome to go read them and my comments above. I think that those links along with what I said make it pretty clear that what he said should be taken in context to what the law was known to provide for.

I have agreed that he would have made that statement more clear and detailed it to the final degree so that it could not be later spun into as if he lied.

He also said you could keep your Doctor and I doubt that common sense would tell you that statement could force a Doctor to keep treating you.

The anti-Obama people would love to find any small grain of something that they can grow into a major scandal. So far I have not seen anything that amounts to much more that the right wing echo chamber repeating stuff to themselves.

You will continue to claim it was a out and out bold face lie. I on the other hand do not consider it quite that extreme and can see why he said it based on what was in the law as explained in the links I provided you.


nac

Patchogue, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not "deeply offended" when posters on this board or radio talk jocks lie. I start to get more concerned when the Fair and Balanced News starts spreading clear lies or when elected Congressmen start clearly spreading lies.
As to Obama saying "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period". I believe that I posted up two links for you to read along with my thought on the matter. You are more than welcome to go read them and my comments above. I think that those links along with what I said make it pretty clear that what he said should be taken in context to what the law was known to provide for.
I have agreed that he would have made that statement more clear and detailed it to the final degree so that it could not be later spun into as if he lied.
He also said you could keep your Doctor and I doubt that common sense would tell you that statement could force a Doctor to keep treating you.
The anti-Obama people would love to find any small grain of something that they can grow into a major scandal. So far I have not seen anything that amounts to much more that the right wing echo chamber repeating stuff to themselves.
You will continue to claim it was a out and out bold face lie. I on the other hand do not consider it quite that extreme and can see why he said it based on what was in the law as explained in the links I provided you.
Fair enough. You want him to speak more "clearly," I want him to speak more truthfully. I guess it ends there.
Opinion

Pine Ridge, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Dec 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough. You want him to speak more "clearly," I want him to speak more truthfully. I guess it ends there.
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/22/how_the_gop_b...
time to get serious

Riverhead, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Dec 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
2007 Global Financial Crisis resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. The housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged.
Causes: The failure of key businesses - triggered by a complex interplay of policies result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street". The 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States.
Solution: The U.S. Federal Reserve and central banks around the world expand money supplies.--- printed more money ----money you had saved was worth less --- prices go up.
The people of the USA paid for the bailouts.
No Democrat, no Republican, no elected official, no Bank official, no government official who was responsible for oversight was held accountable in any manner that I am aware of.
Some bank executives got bonuses out of the bailout money many of the same government officials who were charged with federal oversight are still in place as are the banking executives.
If there is a Grand conspiracy the above comes close.
"Opinion" - it's time to wake up to what big government deficit spending has done to the US.

First, realize that NO Democrat since 1932 has opposed "spend, spend, spend" in spite of the fact that no one has been able to explain how it will end in anything but a bankrupt economy. Ole' Jog Ears in fact in entirely in favor of destruction.

Yep. The current Republican leadership is also part of this. Which is why Burpin' Boehner can't stand the Tea Party either.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of66
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

43 Users are viewing the New York Forum right now

Search the New York Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Nov '10) 3 min Lord Hater 14,164
Knicks talk back (Dec '06) 5 min LAKERS 4 LIFE 6,368
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 20 min No Warming 45,492
NY Who do you support for Governor in New York in ... (Oct '10) 51 min positronium 6,323
NY Who do you support for U.S. Senate in New York ... (Oct '10) 55 min positronium 6,324
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 57 min NYStateOfMind 305,260
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 58 min Brian_G 304,911
Nassau/Suffolk High School Football (Nov '11) 5 hr bigtool 10,163
•••
•••

New York News Video

•••
New York Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

New York Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

New York People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

New York News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in New York
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••