Jughaid

And what sort of enforcement mechanism would you propose to make sure they did that? Would you require forced sterilization? Mandatory surgical birth control until they are off welfare? Termination of the pregnancy? How would you enforce that contract other than cutting off the welfare leaving a child in the hands of a parent with no money? Would you remove the child from the parent?

Being German is not a race. White is a race. Black is a race. Being German is a nationality. The Nazi's thought Germany could produce a master race but that's impossible with a nationality.

Exactly why we need a healthcare plan that covers everbody so employers can't take advantage of employees with the "work an extra hour a day free or you're fired and if you report me I'll just shut the company down and then you'll have no job." Yes. They do that.

Let's not worry about the will of the people but the will of the money. =@

People who get some sort of entitlements shouldn't vote, eh? Why not just ban blue eyed people from voting? Or of a certain religion? Or of a certain political ideology? Maybe have an income threshhold? An educational minimum? Only at least 3rd generations Americans? Wow. Imagine the voting manipulation we can do with all those. OMG! Talk about elitism. Not to mention that it is real easy to manipulate a drug test to get rid of a political opponent.

People who get some sort of entitlements shouldn't vote, eh? Why not just ban blue eyed people from voting? Or of a certain religion? Or of a certain political ideology? Maybe have an income threshhold? An educational minimum? Only at least 3rd generations Americans? Wow. Imagine the voting manipulation we can do with all those.

Great post. There will always be people that abuse the system but the drug testing idea is not the answer. We test and then we cut out the check? They then turn to violent crime to get drugs and money. There will always be problems but we can't throw out the baby with the bath water. Good luck with the lambasting you will continue to get here from the extremists.

Anybody ever been too drunk to fish?

Distemper?

Where is this?

Can recite the Gettysburg address? Maybe the first 2 sentences?

That's good to know. But you sure have alluded to how you would sue anybody on here that pisses you off. Choosing that wording very carefully. Good thing I have copies and links of all that so it can't be edited.

What????

Why would you even say that unless you're sending that message again that anybody who pisses you off will get sued?

Sure I copied it. I didn't put it in quotes. I just changed the name to show that you don't like it when somebody uses the same words as you because it depends on who it is in your mind. So you support those words one way but not the other? A little wishy washy I'd say. I love a difference of opinion! Thankfully we finally agree on something! There is that choosing words carefully again. Is that another one of your veiled threats at a lawsuit again? I am glad you chose your words carefully but why even mention that in your post if it is not to send a message or something? Are you

I'm gload this is in the open forum so everybody can see this. Didn't say a word about you not wanting Pubby to have free speech rigths. I said you do like to be rude. I think everybody can see that when you capitalized SUCCESSFUL in your post that it was that backhand of yours. Obvious. If you don't think Pubby should speak his opinion to a member, why else would you say I hate to be rude Pubby but why in heaven's name would YOU make this kind of statement to one of your members here? Where did I say anything about what you like or didn't like? You put it in quote marks so you

God I hope so. I'm so sick and tired of hearing my husband talk about it. I love the man but sometimes I wish he would just shut up and get a life outside his work.

No you don't. Loved the backhanded SUCCESSFUL thing. Real class. You said you admire people who go to Washington and speak their opinion, but not here in Paulding, I see. http://paulding.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=222114&view=findpost&p=2909550 You know it is actually quite simple - Pubby is very passionate about his causes and if we would all take this stance, the world could potentially become a better place. He might not share the same ideas as you or me or anyone else here; however, he is a human being worthy of respect. As far as I know, he is not guilty of any c

Goes from point A to point B with all the kids' stuff.

If the new legislation wouldn't allow those crime scenes photos to be released, what else would you call it but a ban? Since there is no other legal means to get them that sounds like the government controlling information the public can get, like they do in China. I thought you didn't want the government to move toward a Maoist state? Do we need Big Brother deciding what information we can read? Can't have it both ways. You either want a free press or you don't. So he is both a lib and a smut writer? Just saying it before it gets said by some others.

Yes, the new law being introduced would give a total ban on crime scene photos like this case. Please try to catch up. http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/hustler-magazine-photo-request-356188.html State Rep. Jill Chambers (R-Atlanta) said she will introduce legislation to make sure crime-scene photos like Emerson's never can be obtained through Georgia's public-disclosure laws. Her bill would exempt requests for photos that, among other things, depict nude bodies. <<<>>> Atlanta attorney Bob Rothman, who practices First Amendment law, said he unde

Let's hope the government doesn't decide that information about being christian should be banned because we run the risk of taking people from searching to faithful.

Good idea! I love going to arts and crafts shows! I usually end up taking my sister because my husband is just not into these at all.

That's why the current law is fine and we don't need another that would restrict this. The state can deny it and a judge has the final say. The last thing we want is for their to be no restrictions on records at all, but we don't want a total ban on open records either. You might say people are sick who want to see those pictures but others would say you're sick for your views on things too. The state doesn't get to make that blanket decision. That's why we don't need a more restrictive law. The one we have worked. Can't have it both ways. You either like the Constitutional freedom of free spe