Jughaid

This is exactly why we do not need any new legislation. The current law already says the state can deny it and the judge can review it. The new legislation being proposed says there is no review by a judge. That is not a good idea because the government can then deny the request like they do in China, just because they want to. This is one of the problems with free speech. Sometimes people say things we don't like or find disgusting but that is the price we pay to let everybody have that right. Thought you supported the Constitution?

Fox News does this all the time. So does CNN. ABC. NBC. MSNBC. All of them. That's how you get news and how they get information. They make money from that too. If government can decide what information is to be released, how is that different than Communist China deciding what info their people get?

Legislation is needed? You want the government to decide what information can be released? Isn't that what they do in Communist Countries? Dont the Maoists decide what information can be released like that? I thought you wanted the government out of your life and wanted governemnt smaller, not more controlling. http://paulding.com/forum/index.php?/topic/239397-i-need-liberal-points-of-view-and-moderates-too/page__view__findpost__p__3105078 It's not the government's business what you find acceptable to read or look at. But you want to have new laws where the government can make those de

It might be smut but that is not your place to decide for everyone else. Their reason is no good? What about a crime magazine. Is there a good reason for a crime magazine to have these pictures? What about a documentary movie about unsolved crimes? If the government gets to decide information gets released based on who it is requesting it, then they can deny you information as a family member too. Free society means free information. This is not a Maoists state.

Sure you would. So would I. That's why the current law already has the provision in it for the state to deny the request and a judge can stop it. There is no reason to change the law giving the state the right to stop it without a judge having to review it. I'm only saying that if we pass a new law like has been proposed because of this, we are walking away from free speech. Free speech means being able to publish things we may not like. In this instance, the current law solved the problem. No need to change it.

No way in the hell the Open Records should prohibit the pictures from being requested or granted. None. If the government can prohibit the pictures in one case, they can prohibit them in all cases. The current law has a provision that allows the state to deny the request. Then a judge can decide. There is no reason to change the law. Just one more example of people wanting government to decide things for them and put it on everybody else. If one free speech issue is in danger, they are all in danger.

I don't even want to think about the test anxiety I will have for my babies when they take the SAT.

Good vibes sent.

On Hiram-Sudie? You're near me!

Here's another story that says questions exist but might not be a hoax. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gc_pIFqke7WxQovY3MnhcyIYiLgwD9EDCVTG0

I wanted my name to be "Diane." Don't know why but I always thought the name was pretty and would make a certain guy like me.

I hear ya. After my second child, I felt the same way. I can't even imagine having a third. Good luck to you! Oh! If you see a crazy looking lady with a T shirt on that says "Kiss a Liberal" come up and introduce yourself! Would love to meet some nice pcom peeps.

This is the gym my sister and I belong! Love it. Go as many times as you want. Lots of equipment and no body bothers you. They have a strengthening program where they will coach you but you do have to pay extra for that.

It's just you. Honestly. Do you want such an ignorant statement like what ithy said to go unchallenged? http://paulding.com/forum/index.php?/topic/239311-the-re-writing-of-history/page__view__findpost__p__3104376 I'm just trying to figure out how challenging a completely ignorant statement turns anything sour. Would you prefer that sort of statement be what Paulding County is known for?

So "liberals" are automatically marginalized in your view because they can't possibly have a point of view that has any legitimacy whatsoever. Call them a "liberal" and that automatically makes them ignorant and less than an American. So you define "real black history?" And your qualifications on being an expert in black history are what???

Did you say anal-retentive? Somebody slap my fingers for typing that one. Too easy and God is going to get me for that one, I'm sure. Doesn't matter. You leared all from those "liberal" schools and those "liberal" text books and those "liberal" professors who didn't teach you the truth as defined by the extremists political views.

Now you resort to name calling? http://paulding.com/forum/index.php?/topic/239191-a-few-econ-notes/page__view__findpost__p__3102697 Folks resort to petty insults and name calling primarily because they lack the intellectual skills or knowledge to engage in a logical rational debate of the issues. This psychological defense mechanism is a classic sign of emotional immaturity.

Agree. Lee was a certainly a good general but not great as we have been told. It is easy to be a defensive leader. Look at the one foray into an offensive assault. Disaster. Not to say Lee was not good. Above average. Maybe even a "Hall of Famer." But certainly not the walk-on-water general like some like to think.

Bravo.

You're quoting from a source about African history and saying that should be taught in American history? How detailed do you want us to go into this? When you say "taught" are you saying tyhe textbooks should spend a whole day on that subject? Or that the teacher must say the sentence "Some African wars were fought to capture other Africans to sell to slave traders to be brought to America." Is it that one little sentence you want said to minimize the horrific role of buying another human being? My God. I pity anyone who thinks we should mention such a detail to make the slave trade look bette

Very true. Often times we find out that what we had always "knew" was "true" turns out to be wishful thinking. The idea that Washington was a great general is more legend than fact. He was lucky. He was an opportunist. He was a good motivator. He did surround himself with other good leaders. Then French saved our ass. The idea that he Washington was a great general is bullcheese and we've only come around to admitting that in the last 50 years.

What does that matter? What inkling of a purpose does that serve for American history except to make the buying of another human being not such a bad White Thing because "They" sold their own race? Trying to minimize what Whites did because it was "blacks" that sold other blacks for White Man's money is nothing more than a poor excuse to gloss over the racism. Who did the selling? Who cares! It was an American nation that bought other human beings and we built our nation in part on slave labor. That is our history. What possible reason do you have for inserting that tidbit into the history sur

My God. The Native American wars is not part of American history but Native American history. The history courses are teaching American history and how the nation dealt with those nations. Trying to tear down another culture because of their culture in an attempt to make what America did look a bit better is just putting lipstick on a pig. It is also deceptive.

Bullcheeze, Ithy. Bullcheeze..