HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#175755 Mar 13, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are an example of someone that processes well happy to read this Hip. And you really must not be getting me if you think I have any love for the rnc right now. I'd put that clown from Ky. that said "We're going to crush them." concerning a certain group as most other power hungry folks in D.C. right now. Funny thing that the tea party thing is over and done. Seems strange to hear about something that's dead being crushed. I'm sure its nothing.
You may not "have any love for the rnc right now", when you remember you better add something to show how "fair and balanced" your view is, but the fact is, you didn't bring out this gloom and doom "this country's over" prior to Jan '09, so I'm just calling 'em as you present 'em. The main point is, one could go to The Blaze each morning and predict virtually anything you're going to bring forth that day, right down to vague rants about figures like Woodrow Wilson (really?), and generally capped off with some funereal dirge for the nation. If one can't process info any better than that, it might be best for one's emotional well-being to avoid such things. Just sayin', is all,'cos I love.....

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175756 Mar 13, 2014
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>You may not "have any love for the rnc right now", when you remember you better add something to show how "fair and balanced" your view is, but the fact is, you didn't bring out this gloom and doom "this country's over" prior to Jan '09, so I'm just calling 'em as you present 'em. The main point is, one could go to The Blaze each morning and predict virtually anything you're going to bring forth that day, right down to vague rants about figures like Woodrow Wilson (really?), and generally capped off with some funereal dirge for the nation. If one can't process info any better than that, it might be best for one's emotional well-being to avoid such things. Just sayin', is all,'cos I love.....
Wilson was a progressive, and progressives are the new communists.

If it was soap it would be the new and improved communists - but if it was soap, it would also have value.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175757 Mar 13, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Wilson was a progressive, and progressives are the new communists.
Are you at all alarmed by this president going rogue with that magic wand pen of his on which laws to enforce and which laws not to enforce? He went to great lengths for example to get the ACA declared constitutional by SCOTUS and when that particular "law of the land" runs into problems, he's taken it upon himself to just change it when he feels like it.

I'm with Trey Gowdy on the topic. Where do you stand?

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175758 Mar 13, 2014
A.
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Wilson was a progressive, and progressives are the new communists.
If it was soap it would be the new and improved communists - but if it was soap, it would also have value.
B.
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you at all alarmed by this president going rogue with that magic wand pen of his on which laws to enforce and which laws not to enforce? He went to great lengths for example to get the ACA declared constitutional by SCOTUS and when that particular "law of the land" runs into problems, he's taken it upon himself to just change it when he feels like it.
I'm with Trey Gowdy on the topic. Where do you stand?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =7HBNX3Rj8RIXX
I'm curious about some things.

How does B follow A?

Did Obama go to any greater lengths to defend the ACA's constitutionality from challenges than any other President does with any other law challenged?

Are you interested in discussing the trend toward governance by executive fiat in recent American Presidents, or do you just want to talk about Obama?

If the former, where were you and Trey Gowdy when Bush was using his magic pen to issue a record number of signing statements? It is relevant to the trend toward governance by executive fiat, although damned inconvenient if you merely want to talk about Obama.

If you want to talk about the trend toward governance by executive fiat, I'll tell you that in spite of his promises to the contrary, he appears to have continued, arguably accelerated, that trend. That makes him a politician - and probably a hypocrite, but maybe I repeat myself to (borrowed from Twain).

Where I stand is that I see the trend toward governance by executive fiat as a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, but not in a partisan fashion. I don't believe the 'ENFORCE the Law' bill passed by the house does anything to address that.

Now, you can proceed to tell me where I stand, and probably what I own.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#175759 Mar 13, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I'll bet you'll get your invitation to Cuomo's Thanksgiving Dinner about the time I get mine from Scott Walker or Jan Brewer
Both of them have been targeted by the same kind of phony hysteria that's raging around Cuomo at the moment; it just hasn't come from the your side.
If you stop and think about politics - specifically the kind of politicians elected in New York - I doubt you'd argue that New York was the most hospitable place for "Extreme Conservatives".
The governor of New York (like Wisconsin, Arizona, or any other state) is a politician. Seems to me the governor was talking about the political climate in New York, not stating his policy toward Extreme Conservatives.
Then again, if I was pandering to people who need to feel that they're coming to get us, if I had to keep reinforcing this to draw hits to my website or viewers to my show or readers for my books, then I probably wouldn't admit that out loud.
Lol. He lives in your head rent free. But enough about Beck, it occurs to me you say so and so is a politician quite often. Take this out of politics for a second. I asked Hip some time back if he spent money at Walmart because he was quite clear in his disdain for that company. While I don't share the lefts hate for business, especially ones that have success (remember Walmart was once very small) at least Hip makes good on it and won't spend money with a company he doesn't like. To my mind we have a severe lack of leadership in many areas be it politics, business, churches, ect. You do what you have to but I won't excuse crap because a person is a politician any more than when a pastor is found out to be cheating on his wife or Bernard Ebbers lied about the value of his former company.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#175760 Mar 13, 2014
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>You may not "have any love for the rnc right now", when you remember you better add something to show how "fair and balanced" your view is, but the fact is, you didn't bring out this gloom and doom "this country's over" prior to Jan '09, so I'm just calling 'em as you present 'em. The main point is, one could go to The Blaze each morning and predict virtually anything you're going to bring forth that day, right down to vague rants about figures like Woodrow Wilson (really?), and generally capped off with some funereal dirge for the nation. If one can't process info any better than that, it might be best for one's emotional well-being to avoid such things. Just sayin', is all,'cos I love.....
Really? Haven't said a thing about Wilson. I am convinced you and most libs spend way more time on (name your favorite right winger) than most on the right. I tune into a local progressive station in Tampa sometimes. I view it as a joke most times because it isn't based in anything I can even remotely relate to. Yes, I've said this nation is over but I've also said its not something that keeps me up. It might be a hundred years or more or might end quite suddenly, who knows? But as long as I have the ability to I will speak out when ANYONE that claims to serve the people lies and smears a good portion of the nation because they are so freaking self-absorbed and clearly don't care about the oath they took.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#175761 Mar 13, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
But as long as I have the ability to I will speak out when ANYONE that claims to serve the people lies and smears a good portion of the nation because they are so freaking self-absorbed and clearly don't care about the oath they took.
Where do you stand on politicians who 'smear' half the population, by comparing it to livestock, and calling it 'sluts'?

Just checking....

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175762 Mar 14, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. He lives in your head rent free. But enough about Beck, it occurs to me you say so and so is a politician quite often. Take this out of politics for a second. I asked Hip some time back if he spent money at Walmart because he was quite clear in his disdain for that company. While I don't share the lefts hate for business, especially ones that have success (remember Walmart was once very small) at least Hip makes good on it and won't spend money with a company he doesn't like. To my mind we have a severe lack of leadership in many areas be it politics, business, churches, ect. You do what you have to but I won't excuse crap because a person is a politician any more than when a pastor is found out to be cheating on his wife or Bernard Ebbers lied about the value of his former company.
You are a consumer of a site pandering to people who need to feel that they're coming to get us, as evidenced by the frequency with which you link to it right here in the thread. Beck isn't the only one employing that tactic. If you've read a tenth of what I've posted over the years you'd know that I don't think that's only a right wing practice.

The "left hates business" is as false as "the right is racist". It's easy to assume that disdain for Walmart stems from a 'hatred' of business. It's much harder to consider that most objections to Walmart are about their business and labor practices, not hatred of business.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175763 Mar 14, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
A.
<quoted text>
B.
<quoted text>
1) I'm curious about some things.

2) How does B follow A?

3) Did Obama go to any greater lengths to defend the ACA's constitutionality from challenges than any other President does with any other law challenged?

4) Are you interested in discussing the trend toward governance by executive fiat in recent American Presidents, or do you just want to talk about Obama?

5a) If the former, where were you and Trey Gowdy when Bush was using his magic pen to issue a record number of signing statements?
5b) It is relevant to the trend toward governance by executive fiat, although damned inconvenient if you merely want to talk about Obama.

6) If you want to talk about the trend toward governance by executive fiat, I'll tell you that in spite of his promises to the contrary, he appears to have continued, arguably accelerated, that trend. That makes him a politician - and probably a hypocrite, but maybe I repeat myself to (borrowed from Twain).

7a) Where I stand is that I see the trend toward governance by executive fiat as a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, but not in a partisan fashion.
7b) I don't believe the 'ENFORCE the Law' bill passed by the house does anything to address that.

8) Now, you can proceed to tell me where I stand, and probably what I own.
=====

1) lol- There's a shocker. Curious? Of course you are, Willie. I've rarely seen you address a subject posed by someone other than a liberal without thoroughly checking in advance for any diabolical booby-traps we may have set. Your need to qualify and post disclaimers to most questions and comments coming from anyone other than a liberal, are carefully vetted, clarified, dissected and inspected for suspicious intent before you'll >almost< address it. It's borderline pathological with you.

2) It doesn't, so put down your weapon. I just felt like asking you a question and posed it when the mood struck. Breathe, Willie, breathe. There's is nothing sinister going on here.

3) Yes.

4) If I wanted to discuss trends, I would have something clever like: " let's discuss trends." I want to talk about Obama.

5a) It's not the former, it's the latter but for the record, Trey Gowdy had an alibi during the Bush years. He was a federal prosecutor in SC and didn't become a congressman until 2011. My whereabouts during the Bush years are irrelevant.
5b) For the 2nd time. I want to talk about Obama's record. If I had wanted to discuss his predecessors and "trends" I would have said so. Try and live with the inconvenience.

6) For the 3rd time, I said nothing about "trends." You're trying to rewrite my post. Wanna go for 4?

7a) LOL! And there it is! For the 4th time, I wasn't discussing "trends."
7b) Maybe you could elaborate with specifics on why the Enforce the Law act "wouldn't address" the problem and wouldn't be a positive tool to aid in limiting presidential power by providing the legislative branch legal standing with which to oppose executive overreach.

8) Where you stand, I guess, is somewhere in Indiana and besides having an unlimited supply of liberal cow fertilizer, I have no idea what you own.

==
Now, isn't this fun? I pose a comment and question to you. You dissect it like a suspicious crazy person. I respond to your crazy person dissection and toss the dissected mess back in your lap and now you get re-dissect the dissection until the original intent is lost or due to exasperation, I give up. Whichever comes fist.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#175764 Mar 14, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Haven't said a thing about Wilson. I am convinced you and most libs spend way more time on (name your favorite right winger) than most on the right. I tune into a local progressive station in Tampa sometimes. I view it as a joke most times because it isn't based in anything I can even remotely relate to. Yes, I've said this nation is over but I've also said its not something that keeps me up. It might be a hundred years or more or might end quite suddenly, who knows? But as long as I have the ability to I will speak out when ANYONE that claims to serve the people lies and smears a good portion of the nation because they are so freaking self-absorbed and clearly don't care about the oath they took.
You don't recall invoking Wilson, eh? I think you're helping prove my point - that it means little to you, you're just rehashing topics and names your favorite "source" says you're supposed to be concerned about. Now, since veracity is important to me, I can slog back thru and find it for you, but believe me, friend, you did invoke Wilson's spirit for a spell there.

As I say, if you're so little invested in what you complain about that you don't even recall doing so, then one wonders, why complain? What's the point?

As for "the nation is over" but "it might be a hundred years or more", I'd say that ranks you right up there with Nostradamus as far as predictions so vague they can never be strictly wrong, as long as you've got patience. Like, centuries of patience.

I do not in the least expect this nation to "survive" as is in perpetuity, and it has nothing to do with ideology. It's simply because I take a long view on history and governments - no government survives forever "as is", but the paradox is, it's usually the stubborn attempt to remain "as is" that signals their slide from what they longingly consider their "glory days". We will weep and wail and rent our garments, and our nation, all in the name of "preserving" antiquated and archaic institutions and mindsets.

But I take some comfort from ol Jefferson - he also didn't believe the country could, or should, survive "as is". He actually had some idea that the Constitution should be revisited on the order of each generation or so, because he also took a long view of history, and knew that history teaches that a static governing system is a slow slide to irrelevancy at best, extinction at worst.

So, yeah, me and Wilson and others are progressive. And people like Beck says we're bad, very bad, and a bunch more people say Yeah, Glenn, they're bad, they're ruining "our" country. And so we go down the slippery slide..........and I feel fine, because people is where it's at, not governments.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#175765 Mar 14, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>You are a consumer of a site pandering to people who need to feel that they're coming to get us, as evidenced by the frequency with which you link to it right here in the thread. Beck isn't the only one employing that tactic. If you've read a tenth of what I've posted over the years you'd know that I don't think that's only a right wing practice.
After last years tornado wiped out a significant portion of Washington IL, Beck went from being a provocateur in the abstract, to a proven manipulative liar on the home-front. The day after the tornadoes, Beck announced on his radio show and website that "agents" from FEMA were "turned away" by "officials" with guns from an IL community that he never quite named. He went so far as to say this was witnessed by none other than some "relief" group dispatched by one of his umbrella organizations.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/21/wh...

Except it was an outright lie. And not just an innocuous lie, but a lie that affected people in anguish and despair after the disaster. The mayor's office was inundated with calls from people wondering why such a thing would happen, they needed any help they could get. So, in addition to dealing with the disaster itself, city officials had to negotiate Beck's self-serving lie.

What's even more insidious, it turns out, is that Beck made his own wish come true. After the Joplin MO tornado 2 years earlier, Beck mused longingly for just such a scenario, where people turned FEMA away, Then two years later, according to Beck, it allegedly "happened" just as he had imagined. Amazing, huh?

http://www.examiner.com/article/glenn-beck-us...

There is no better proof that Beck feels that lying to his constituency is justified, if it serves to get his "message" out. And his constituency don't care, as evidenced by a Google search showing that Beck's fabrication still lives on on The Blaze, as well as multiple blogs and webpages, without correction.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175766 Mar 14, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
=====
1) lol- There's a shocker. Curious? Of course you are, Willie. I've rarely seen you address a subject posed by someone other than a liberal without thoroughly checking in advance for any diabolical booby-traps we may have set. Your need to qualify and post disclaimers to most questions and comments coming from anyone other than a liberal, are carefully vetted, clarified, dissected and inspected for suspicious intent before you'll >almost< address it. It's borderline pathological with you.
2) It doesn't, so put down your weapon. I just felt like asking you a question and posed it when the mood struck. Breathe, Willie, breathe. There's is nothing sinister going on here.
3) Yes.
4) If I wanted to discuss trends, I would have something clever like: " let's discuss trends." I want to talk about Obama.
5a) It's not the former, it's the latter but for the record, Trey Gowdy had an alibi during the Bush years. He was a federal prosecutor in SC and didn't become a congressman until 2011. My whereabouts during the Bush years are irrelevant.
5b) For the 2nd time. I want to talk about Obama's record. If I had wanted to discuss his predecessors and "trends" I would have said so. Try and live with the inconvenience.
6) For the 3rd time, I said nothing about "trends." You're trying to rewrite my post. Wanna go for 4?
7a) LOL! And there it is! For the 4th time, I wasn't discussing "trends."
7b) Maybe you could elaborate with specifics on why the Enforce the Law act "wouldn't address" the problem and wouldn't be a positive tool to aid in limiting presidential power by providing the legislative branch legal standing with which to oppose executive overreach.
8) Where you stand, I guess, is somewhere in Indiana and besides having an unlimited supply of liberal cow fertilizer, I have no idea what you own.
==
Now, isn't this fun? I pose a comment and question to you. You dissect it like a suspicious crazy person. I respond to your crazy person dissection and toss the dissected mess back in your lap and now you get re-dissect the dissection until the original intent is lost or due to exasperation, I give up. Whichever comes fist.
The ENFORCE act won't address the real problem of executive overreach because it is a partisan gimmick with no chance of becoming law. Its sponsors in the House knew this in advance.

They (or at least most of them) are smart enough to know how this tool could have been used in the hands of the Pelosi House during the Bush Administration, for example.

I'm also not sure that, under the law, you can compare waiving statutory ACA deadlines or the 5 year welfare limit with failure to prosecute even a whole class of crimes (drug and immigration have come up in some discussions of the ENFORCE act I've read).

That's just off the top of my head. I haven't read the bill because it has no chance of passing the Senate.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#175767 Mar 14, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
I want to talk about Obama.

My whereabouts during the Bush years are irrelevant.
There it is.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175768 Mar 14, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>There it is.
.......enter the sound of galloping hooves on cobblestones.

It's Hip to the rescue!
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175769 Mar 14, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>After last years tornado wiped out a significant portion of Washington IL, Beck went from being a provocateur in the abstract, to a proven manipulative liar on the home-front. The day after the tornadoes, Beck announced on his radio show and website that "agents" from FEMA were "turned away" by "officials" with guns from an IL community that he never quite named. He went so far as to say this was witnessed by none other than some "relief" group dispatched by one of his umbrella organizations.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/21/wh...
Except it was an outright lie. And not just an innocuous lie, but a lie that affected people in anguish and despair after the disaster. The mayor's office was inundated with calls from people wondering why such a thing would happen, they needed any help they could get. So, in addition to dealing with the disaster itself, city officials had to negotiate Beck's self-serving lie.
What's even more insidious, it turns out, is that Beck made his own wish come true. After the Joplin MO tornado 2 years earlier, Beck mused longingly for just such a scenario, where people turned FEMA away, Then two years later, according to Beck, it allegedly "happened" just as he had imagined. Amazing, huh?
http://www.examiner.com/article/glenn-beck-us...
There is no better proof that Beck feels that lying to his constituency is justified, if it serves to get his "message" out. And his constituency don't care, as evidenced by a Google search showing that Beck's fabrication still lives on on The Blaze, as well as multiple blogs and webpages, without correction.
Take out the part about tornadoes and you just described Obama.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#175770 Mar 14, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
=====
1) lol- There's a shocker. Curious? Of course you are, Willie. I've rarely seen you address a subject posed by someone other than a liberal without thoroughly checking in advance for any diabolical booby-traps we may have set. Your need to qualify and post disclaimers to most questions and comments coming from anyone other than a liberal, are carefully vetted, clarified, dissected and inspected for suspicious intent before you'll >almost< address it. It's borderline pathological with you.
2) It doesn't, so put down your weapon. I just felt like asking you a question and posed it when the mood struck. Breathe, Willie, breathe. There's is nothing sinister going on here.
3) Yes.
4) If I wanted to discuss trends, I would have something clever like: " let's discuss trends." I want to talk about Obama.
5a) It's not the former, it's the latter but for the record, Trey Gowdy had an alibi during the Bush years. He was a federal prosecutor in SC and didn't become a congressman until 2011. My whereabouts during the Bush years are irrelevant.
5b) For the 2nd time. I want to talk about Obama's record. If I had wanted to discuss his predecessors and "trends" I would have said so. Try and live with the inconvenience.
6) For the 3rd time, I said nothing about "trends." You're trying to rewrite my post. Wanna go for 4?
7a) LOL! And there it is! For the 4th time, I wasn't discussing "trends."
7b) Maybe you could elaborate with specifics on why the Enforce the Law act "wouldn't address" the problem and wouldn't be a positive tool to aid in limiting presidential power by providing the legislative branch legal standing with which to oppose executive overreach.
8) Where you stand, I guess, is somewhere in Indiana and besides having an unlimited supply of liberal cow fertilizer, I have no idea what you own.
==
Now, isn't this fun? I pose a comment and question to you. You dissect it like a suspicious crazy person. I respond to your crazy person dissection and toss the dissected mess back in your lap and now you get re-dissect the dissection until the original intent is lost or due to exasperation, I give up. Whichever comes fist.
Better to be a "suspicious crazy person" than a blatant racist.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175771 Mar 14, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>The ENFORCE act won't address the real problem of executive overreach because it is a partisan gimmick with no chance of becoming law. Its sponsors in the House knew this in advance.
They (or at least most of them) are smart enough to know how this tool could have been used in the hands of the Pelosi House during the Bush Administration, for example.
I'm also not sure that, under the law, you can compare waiving statutory ACA deadlines or the 5 year welfare limit with failure to prosecute even a whole class of crimes (drug and immigration have come up in some discussions of the ENFORCE act I've read).
That's just off the top of my head. I haven't read the bill because it has no chance of passing the Senate.
Harry Reid has a already been told by Herr Obama to make sure it doesn't pass by threatening to veto any bill that would require his administration to enforce laws. And Harry the rodent Reid would rather jam pencils into his ears before he defied Obama. But if you think for one minute the president should get to decide which laws he’s going to enforce any more than Americans get to decide which laws they’re going to follow, you're certifiable and the fact that this president would threaten to veto a measure requiring him to uphold his constitutional obligations, emphasizes why this bill is needed and how out of control he is.

5 or 6 democrats voted for it in the House. At least a couple of them have something in their pants besides loose change.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175772 Mar 14, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
.......enter the sound of galloping hooves on cobblestones.
It's Hip to the rescue!
I didn't need rescuing, Lyndi.

You want to talk about one part of a problem. I wouldn't mind talking about the whole thing.

The Congressman was working for the Bush Administration when signing statements was the issue. Your whereabouts during the Bush years probably are irrelevant - but wherever you were, you were probably yelling liberal.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#175773 Mar 14, 2014
Washington (The Borowitz Report)— President Obama has sparked outrage in Congress and renewed calls for his impeachment by signing a daring Presidential memorandum that would pay workers enough to eat.

The memorandum, which is based on the President’s view that people should be paid for the hours they actually work, is shaping up as one of the most controversial and incendiary actions of his Presidency.

House Republican leaders held a press conference this morning to warn Obama that, by advancing his agenda of paying people for the work they do, he is “playing with political fire.”

“A Presidential memorandum is a powerful tool and should be used sparingly,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).“It is not a vehicle for this President to enact his pet theories about people earning enough to survive.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) concurred, telling reporters,“With one stroke of the pen, President Obama is removing the single greatest incentive for work: hunger.”

“Apparently, President Obama needs a lesson in American history,” he said.“Hunger built the railroads. Hunger picked the crops. When the American people learn more about this action of the President’s, they will see it for what it is: a hunger-killer.”
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175774 Mar 14, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text> Your whereabouts during the Bush years probably are irrelevant - but wherever you were, you were probably yelling liberal.
I don't yell, Willie except maybe at a Fenway Park..........

"BLAST ONE TO THE MOON, BIG PAPI!"

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 7 min Innocent Holy dr ... 33,170
Moses never existed 7 min KiMare 820
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min Hidingfromyou 778,073
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 9 min onemale 265,434
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 14 min truth 605,326
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 15 min Liam 560,431
Fischbach army depot-NATO site 67 (Mar '07) 33 min buzz zube 411
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 2 hr Anti-Christ 441,819
More from around the web