Did you vote today?

Judged:

1

1

1

Redd Neckerson wrote:

<quoted text>
Simple, under French Bridges with iPads of course.

Judged:

1

1

1

Pondering wrote:

<quoted text>
Do all misspelled words look French?

Judged:

1

1

1

Redd Neckerson wrote:

<quoted text>
Do all Bridge Hags lack a sense of humor?

Pondering wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know all of you, but some of you do

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess you believe that we would have been just as successful had our millitary not gone in and put troops on the ground to back Bin Laden into a corner and then utilized the informants to find out where he was hidding? As good as our millitary technology is we still have a need for ground troops. We were using both ground troops and drone strikes as well as countless other tactics and it still took about 10 yrs to get him. How long do you think it would have taken without the ground troops? For that matter how do you think we would have gotten him without ground troops?

Judged:

1

Charmed wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't say we wouldn't need ANY ground troops. I said we would need FEWER military personnel - hence the cuts in the military would be necessary.(Also, I'm not Barney)

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
First off I do believe that we should not be in the Middle East at all unless it is in support of our only ally Israel. It's quite clear that the terrorist will simply wait out any enemy (in this case the enemy is us) that comes in until the enemy has run out of money. At that point the terrorist just simply set up shop again and in a year or so they will have undone the decade of gains that have been made. Russia went home with their tales tucked between their legs and we will have to do the same thing. Having said that I was referring to the fact that you believe that special ops alone can have the same effectiveness as they do combined with ground troops. I don't believe that at all. There would have been too many obstacles to overcome had we just had special ops on the ground to even get close enough to Bin Laden let alone kill him. What you are proposing is a politically correct war. That is a one way street to defeat. The only way the Middle East will ever have a chance is for someone to wipe the face of the earth clean of those countries that harbor terrorist and then start from scratch and that ain't going to happen.

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
No, what REALLY should happen is people need to make their own retirement and stop thinking that the government will be there to take care of them when they are old. We have a backwards mentality here in America that says we should be able to put 50,000 into SS over a lifetime of work and somehow be able to draw $250,000 from retirement until death. SS contributions don't draw any interest making the formula unworkable. Now, we have current seniors living off of the current working class' contributions. It's sad that so many have bought into the lie that is SS.

Judged:

2

1

1

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
First off I do believe that we should not be in the Middle East at all unless it is in support of our only ally Israel. It's quite clear that the terrorist will simply wait out any enemy (in this case the enemy is us) that comes in until the enemy has run out of money. At that point the terrorist just simply set up shop again and in a year or so they will have undone the decade of gains that have been made. Russia went home with their tales tucked between their legs and we will have to do the same thing. Having said that I was referring to the fact that you believe that special ops alone can have the same effectiveness as they do combined with ground troops. I don't believe that at all. There would have been too many obstacles to overcome had we just had special ops on the ground to even get close enough to Bin Laden let alone kill him. What you are proposing is a politically correct war. That is a one way street to defeat. The only way the Middle East will ever have a chance is for someone to wipe the face of the earth clean of those countries that harbor terrorist and then start from scratch and that ain't going to happen.

Judged:

2

2

1

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
Save your time, you won't find any.
NOW, to say that I , "ridicule any other religions" is simply untrue.
If you would like to change that, to this' IM not ridiculing religion, IM ridiculing Republicans claiming to be religious.
You would be correct.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
The only way the Middle East will ever have a chance is for someone to wipe the face of the earth clean of those countries that harbor terrorist and then start from scratch and that ain't going to happen.

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
Save your time, you won't find any.
NOW, to say that I , "ridicule any other religions" is simply untrue.
If you would like to change that, to this' IM not ridiculing religion, IM ridiculing Republicans claiming to be religious.
You would be correct.

Judged:

1

1

1

Redd Neckerson wrote:

<quoted text>
Barn, there are rumblings in the scientific world that in the very near future many religious questions will be answered.
Don't know crapola about it myself, but if I were guessing, might have something to do with the bacterial life found on Mars. Stands to reason that the possibility of higher life forms also once existed on Mars since it has quite a bit of water within it's crust.

give me a break wrote:

Anyone who votes republican is a redneck racist homophobic redneck and quess what finally the young people with good sense outnumber you bible pushin republicans losers

Judged:

1

1

1

geegee wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh yea, their real smart alright. Pregnant, married and divorced before they reach 20, maybe twice. Steroes that have so much bass you can't hear the song, only feel the native beat of the bottom. Brains scrambles and hearing ruined. Great bunch of futurer democrats you got there. Oh yea, and most of them can't tell you what country the grand canyon is in. I rest my case.