Romney-Ryan Debate - Frankfort, KY

Discuss the national Romney-Ryan debate in Frankfort, KY.

Are you happy that Romney picked Paul Ryan as his VP?

Frankfort is happy with the Ryan pick.
Yes
 
20
Don't care
 
9
No
 
6

Vote now in Frankfort:

Comments
101 - 120 of 408 Comments Last updated -
hmm

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
Sep 17, 2012
 
I do research and there is no facts stating Republicans are only for the rich. It is a sad tactic used by the pathetic libs to try and get the easy votes.
Blondie

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
Sep 17, 2012
 
concerned conservative wrote:
ladies and germs it is kike this. if it was not for his pet media spreading his lies and agenda, they lie more than he does. he would not have a snowballs chance in hell at re-election. when i say liberal media i mean the network news. the american people want a media who reports the news, not create the news. get your blinders off america! everything the left is accusing the right of doing the left is actually doing it.
unless you make 100k a year ya better vote Obama , do some research Obama wants more jobs , Romney wants more tax breaks for the rich !! Obama will win and I can't wait for the rich to pay some real taxes !!! Seriously should a person that makes 100k a year pay the same amount of taxes as a person that works at McDonalds really???? If you do then your either predjise or rich !! Ignore that fact that Obama is black , look at what each one is for then pick!!! And I am white and no I don't date out of my race so don't try and say that !!!

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
Sep 18, 2012
 
hmm wrote:
I do research and there is no facts stating Republicans are only for the rich. It is a sad tactic used by the pathetic libs to try and get the easy votes.
You are not going to find "facts" that say the Republicans only support the rich. You have to look at party track records. You have to look at the types of legislative initiatives Republicans actually promote and the things they vote for in the House and Senate. You have to dig deeper. On one hand it is an easy thing to say. On the other it is not an absolute "truth" or applicable to every Republican.

That being said, the Republican Party platform for years has been small government, fewer regulations, lower taxes (especially for top earners). Their platform overwhelmingly supports big business in the belief that those at the top "create jobs" which allows the free market to solve problems. And to some extent they are correct. The problem is that they ignore the problems inherent in their model. Small government typically manifests itself as rolling back regulations which protect the many from the few,(EPA Regulations, Consumer Protection Regulations, Banking Regulations, etc. The lack of regulations and oversight results in abuses of the system which lead to things like major finacial collapses (See: Black Monday, Credit Default Swaps). Lower taxes (especially on top earners) results in less government revenues which increases the deficit gap which leads to deficit spending.

The Republican Platform ideologically sounds great. In practice it gives huge advantages to top earners while failing to protect the majority of Americans from suffering the consequences of the those top earners actions.

We DO NOT need SMALLER Government. We need SMARTER government. We need a more efficient government so that government costs less and therefore reduces the tax burden for all without cutting services.

The Democrats aren't any better at smart government than the Republicans. In my viewpoit though the Democrats stand by the working class citizen over the wealthy and stand for equal justice for all rather than rewarding only the most successful.
J J Bean

Crestwood, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
Sep 18, 2012
 
The Mindless American wrote:
<quoted text>You are not going to find "facts" that say the Republicans only support the rich. You have to look at party track records. You have to look at the types of legislative initiatives Republicans actually promote and the things they vote for in the House and Senate. You have to dig deeper. On one hand it is an easy thing to say. On the other it is not an absolute "truth" or applicable to every Republican.
That being said, the Republican Party platform for years has been small government, fewer regulations, lower taxes (especially for top earners). Their platform overwhelmingly supports big business in the belief that those at the top "create jobs" which allows the free market to solve problems. And to some extent they are correct. The problem is that they ignore the problems inherent in their model. Small government typically manifests itself as rolling back regulations which protect the many from the few,(EPA Regulations, Consumer Protection Regulations, Banking Regulations, etc. The lack of regulations and oversight results in abuses of the system which lead to things like major finacial collapses (See: Black Monday, Credit Default Swaps). Lower taxes (especially on top earners) results in less government revenues which increases the deficit gap which leads to deficit spending.
The Republican Platform ideologically sounds great. In practice it gives huge advantages to top earners while failing to protect the majority of Americans from suffering the consequences of the those top earners actions.
We DO NOT need SMALLER Government. We need SMARTER government. We need a more efficient government so that government costs less and therefore reduces the tax burden for all without cutting services.
The Democrats aren't any better at smart government than the Republicans. In my viewpoit though the Democrats stand by the working class citizen over the wealthy and stand for equal justice for all rather than rewarding only the most successful.
Very well stated Mindless American!
J J Bean

Crestwood, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110
Sep 18, 2012
 
I hope all middle and poor working class individualls watch and pay attention to the latest released, taped conversation of Romney's opnion of 47% of Americans.
Ron Paul 2012

Fontana, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
Sep 18, 2012
 
Gary Johnson is a sell out to the Wall Street Banksters!: http://www.youtube.com/watch...
hmm

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112
Sep 18, 2012
 
J J Bean wrote:
I hope all middle and poor working class individualls watch and pay attention to the latest released, taped conversation of Romney's opnion of 47% of Americans.
Im in the poor class...im a poor college student. Whats your point? Ill tell you what Romney's point was because obviously you didnt get it. He was talking about people being dependent on the government. Thats not what our nation was founded on. We shouldnt have to rely on them.
hmm

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113
Sep 18, 2012
 
From Rush Limbaugh.

We ask ourselves, "Okay, have we reached the tipping point?" Just like de Tocqueville said, have we reached the point where more people are comfortable being cared for and taken care of than they are providing for themselves? And we've all feared that this election or thought this election was going to give us the answer to that question. That's been the fear that we've all had. Where are we? The questions being asked on the conservative blogs when somebody says, "How come Romney's not 15 points ahead?" that's what they mean. What they really mean is, have we lost the country? Have we lost the culture? Have we lost the American work ethic? Have we lost American optimism? Have we lost the thing that was talked about all over the Republican convention?

What was the theme of that convention? Every speaker got up there and talked about how their parents had nothing, came from nothing, and America gave the speakers the opportunity to be the best they could be, using whatever talents and ambition that they had. This is a gold mine of opportunity that Romney has here. The real question is: Does he have anybody on his staff to tell him? Does he have anybody -- any consultants -- who will, or are they still gonna be wallowing in fear over this?

'Cause it's out there, and it's gonna be dealt with, and it may as well be seized as an opportunity. Whatever happened to the drive to improve ourselves? Whatever happened to the drive to be better today than yesterday? Whatever happened to the drive to pursue excellence? Whatever happened to all that? I think it's still there. That's what EIB is all about. What EIB is all about is... You people don't know. I am so desirous of this: I wish everybody in this country could do well.

I want everybody to experience the abundance and the greatness of this country. I want everybody to be told how to do it, not told that it can't be done, which is what Obama does. If anybody ought to be under the microscope, it's Obama. Obama's tamping down expectations. Obama's ratcheting up fear. Obama's the guy whose foreign policy is falling apart. Obama's the guy who's watching our economy disintegrate. Obama's the guy whose policies are making it tougher and tougher and tougher for excellence to matter in one's pursuit of life.
hmm

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114
Sep 18, 2012
 
And before any one starts bashing Rush just read his comment. I dont care what you think of him or what he believes. There are many things i dont agree with of what he says but when i hear something that hes right about i want others to know.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115
Sep 19, 2012
 
The main assumption you have is that he is right. He isn't! He isn't any more correct than Romney equating every person who voted for Obama as being on the government dole. I voted for Obama and have never taken a dime from the Government. I have worked for everything I have. So has my spouse. So did my parents and my grandparents who voted for Obama last time and will again. The difference is that men like Romney and Rush have no real concept of why the working class looks at their policies and their ideology and say "WHAT? You want to give billionaires even more tax cuts? You want to do this at the same time you are railing against deficits and debt?" We have watched as the Republican model time and again has favored an elite class of corporate giants while bypassing doing the things that truely help middle class families keep more of their income they earned.

The shrinking of the middle class has much more to do with the "cost effective" corporations who place profit margins over people. Take Wal-Mart for example. Imagine if every Wal-Mart executive took a reduction to their own bottom line voluntarily in order to pay their front line workers a living wage that allowed those people to have full time jobs with benefits and some hope of a reasonable retirement. How many people would that move into the middle class and off of welfare rolls. How much money would that save the government in welfare funding? But no. The corporate model is "keep as much profit as possible for ourselves". Those front line workers that do the work of making our money for us aren't worth paying a salary that is reasonable, not when there is more profits for me.

These huge corporations are creating a large protion of the welfare class in this country but don't want to ante up to the government to help pay for the mess they are creating. It is a load of horseshit. I am sick and tired of paying through the nose in taxes to support my neighbors and community because corporations get to have their bread buttered on both sides. Enough is enough! If they aren't going to put out the money on the front end to provide a living to every single employee that does the heavy lifting in this country then we are going to take it from them on the back end. Until I hear one Republican who will make the argument that the billionaires in this nation need to do a better job of providing a living to every single person in their employee I will be voting Democratic. And everyone else should to!
J J Bean

Crestwood, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116
Sep 19, 2012
 
The Mindless American wrote:
The main assumption you have is that he is right. He isn't! He isn't any more correct than Romney equating every person who voted for Obama as being on the government dole. I voted for Obama and have never taken a dime from the Government. I have worked for everything I have. So has my spouse. So did my parents and my grandparents who voted for Obama last time and will again. The difference is that men like Romney and Rush have no real concept of why the working class looks at their policies and their ideology and say "WHAT? You want to give billionaires even more tax cuts? You want to do this at the same time you are railing against deficits and debt?" We have watched as the Republican model time and again has favored an elite class of corporate giants while bypassing doing the things that truely help middle class families keep more of their income they earned.
The shrinking of the middle class has much more to do with the "cost effective" corporations who place profit margins over people. Take Wal-Mart for example. Imagine if every Wal-Mart executive took a reduction to their own bottom line voluntarily in order to pay their front line workers a living wage that allowed those people to have full time jobs with benefits and some hope of a reasonable retirement. How many people would that move into the middle class and off of welfare rolls. How much money would that save the government in welfare funding? But no. The corporate model is "keep as much profit as possible for ourselves". Those front line workers that do the work of making our money for us aren't worth paying a salary that is reasonable, not when there is more profits for me.
These huge corporations are creating a large protion of the welfare class in this country but don't want to ante up to the government to help pay for the mess they are creating. It is a load of horseshit. I am sick and tired of paying through the nose in taxes to support my neighbors and community because corporations get to have their bread buttered on both sides. Enough is enough! If they aren't going to put out the money on the front end to provide a living to every single employee that does the heavy lifting in this country then we are going to take it from them on the back end. Until I hear one Republican who will make the argument that the billionaires in this nation need to do a better job of providing a living to every single person in their employee I will be voting Democratic. And everyone else should to!
Again, Very well said Mindless American!
Are You Kidding

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117
Sep 19, 2012
 
I am a retired Republican and I will vote for Romney. In my opinion Romney was speaking of the millions of Americans who receive government benefits and feel "entitled" to them. Obama has made it very clear he plans to expand government benefits and Romney does not. Those receiving these benefits will most likely vote for Obama and Romney was indicating there was no need to focus on those voters.

President Roosevelt enacted welfare programs after the Great Depression in order to "temporarily" assist families in need until they were able to get on their feet. Unfortunately, it has become a "career" rather than a temporary solution in many situations.

Government anti-poverty programs have grown to serve a record one in five Americans and are continuing to expand. More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor. That is up at least 17% since December 2007. The program has grown even before the new health care law adds about 16 million people, beginning in 2014. Every Medicaid director in the country indicates their current enrollment is the highest on record. More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50%. Caseloads have risen as more people become eligible. The economic stimulus law signed by President Obama last year boosted benefits and decreased eligibility requirements. Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance, nearly four times the number from 2007. More than 4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase.

As caseloads for all the programs have soared, so have costs. The federal price tag for Medicaid has jumped 36% in two years, to $273 billion. Jobless benefits have soared from $43 billion to $160 billion. The food stamps program has risen 80%, to $70 billion. Welfare is up 24%, to $22 billion. Taken together, they cost more than Medicare.

I certainly realize there are many people who are in need of "temporary" government benefits. My issue is with those who "work" the system to receive benefits "permanently". They make a "career" of receiving the benefits and pass this mind set on to their children. They DO feel "entitled" and we as tax payers carry this burden. I worked in government for 37 years and know first hand the vast amount of abuses which occur. I want less government and an economy which allows more people off benefits rather than continuing to add them on. If this is not turned around, there will eventually be more people receiving benefits than there are tax payers. What then????

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118
Sep 19, 2012
 
Are You Kidding wrote:
What then????
So under your draconian ending of all entitlement programs how are you going to deal with the economic impact that it will bring? The money spent on the Food Stamp program is a huge boon to the food products industry and with the loss in revenues these companies will be forced to lay off countless workers, as will grocery stores nationwide. Farmers will have trouble moving their products which will also cause job losses in that sector. Emergency rooms will be flooded with individuals seeking medical care because they cannot afford to visit a regular doctor. The cost of those emergency room visits will be passed on to those of us with coverage in the form of higher prices for insurance because hospitals must pass their operating costs on to the consumer. With the loss of the lifelines that give millions of Americans a chance you will see ritoing which will cost municipalities billions of dollars. Crime rates will spike because people are deperate to feed themselves and their children. That will mean more police and prisons needed which are vastly more expensive than the programs themselves, unless of course we are to stop feeding our prison populations as well. You ignore a simple fact....there are people who are trying to find jobs already and having difficulty because the job markets are tight. I guess with your model we at least will need a lot more police and prison guards so I guess that is where they will all work. But wait...aren't those jobs primarily government jobs? So now instead of feeding the poor and providing some semblance of a normal life they are either being fed by working for the government arresting and guarding those who couldn't get the police and prison jobs or they are in prison being fed by the government because they committed a crime of desperation. Sounds lovely!
Are You Kidding

Robbins, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119
Sep 19, 2012
 
The Mindless American wrote:
<quoted text>So under your draconian ending of all entitlement programs how are you going to deal with the economic impact that it will bring? The money spent on the Food Stamp program is a huge boon to the food products industry and with the loss in revenues these companies will be forced to lay off countless workers, as will grocery stores nationwide. Farmers will have trouble moving their products which will also cause job losses in that sector. Emergency rooms will be flooded with individuals seeking medical care because they cannot afford to visit a regular doctor. The cost of those emergency room visits will be passed on to those of us with coverage in the form of higher prices for insurance because hospitals must pass their operating costs on to the consumer. With the loss of the lifelines that give millions of Americans a chance you will see ritoing which will cost municipalities billions of dollars. Crime rates will spike because people are deperate to feed themselves and their children. That will mean more police and prisons needed which are vastly more expensive than the programs themselves, unless of course we are to stop feeding our prison populations as well. You ignore a simple fact....there are people who are trying to find jobs already and having difficulty because the job markets are tight. I guess with your model we at least will need a lot more police and prison guards so I guess that is where they will all work. But wait...aren't those jobs primarily government jobs? So now instead of feeding the poor and providing some semblance of a normal life they are either being fed by working for the government arresting and guarding those who couldn't get the police and prison jobs or they are in prison being fed by the government because they committed a crime of desperation. Sounds lovely!
Your response is a total extreme which you very well know is not what I was implying. I did not even insinuate "ending of all entitlement programs". The programs would still be there for those really in "need". I am referring to putting many people back to work so they do not need government assistance. They will still buy groceries and hopefully have health care available through their employers. In addition, have you heard of the "food stamp market" in which those who qualify are actually selling the food stamps for drugs and other non-food items?

I don't want 50% or even 25% of Americans receiving government assistance to survive. I don't want children raised to believe that receiving these benefits is a way of life and an "entitlement". Your comments suggest it is an entitlement and we should just continue the path we are following. I cannot accept that as the future of this country.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120
Sep 19, 2012
 
Are You Kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response is a total extreme which you very well know is not what I was implying. I did not even insinuate "ending of all entitlement programs". The programs would still be there for those really in "need". I am referring to putting many people back to work so they do not need government assistance. They will still buy groceries and hopefully have health care available through their employers. In addition, have you heard of the "food stamp market" in which those who qualify are actually selling the food stamps for drugs and other non-food items?
I don't want 50% or even 25% of Americans receiving government assistance to survive. I don't want children raised to believe that receiving these benefits is a way of life and an "entitlement". Your comments suggest it is an entitlement and we should just continue the path we are following. I cannot accept that as the future of this country.
And how precisely do you sort out those who "really" need the help from those who are lying without making the programs so difficult to access that they are essentially unavailable to most americans? If you have some foolproof method of doing so, that isn't prhibitively expensive, then I am sure the State and Federal Governments would love to hear from you. You act as if President Obama made a concious choice to place more people on welfare when he got into office rather than economic circumstances dictating that the size of these programs was necessarily going to have to grow because the economic conditions demanded it. You also seem to have a magical bullet idea for creating millions of more jobs than currently exist. Again the Government would love to hear from you. You need to stop listening to pundits and politicians who think that 1/2 the country receives some kind of assistance. They don't. Not even close. Amongst Romney's 47% of households who don' pay taxes are the elderly who already paid their lifetime of taxes and are drawing social security and households of low wage earners who after deductions have no tax burden. It also includes students who earn little or nothing because they are in school full time before beginning their careers and a lifetime of paying taxes. Oh and probably includes him who ended up with no tax burden because he has an army of lawyers and accountants he can afford to find ways for him not to pay...
Are You Kidding

Robbins, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121
Sep 19, 2012
 
The Mindless American wrote:
<quoted text>And how precisely do you sort out those who "really" need the help from those who are lying without making the programs so difficult to access that they are essentially unavailable to most americans? If you have some foolproof method of doing so, that isn't prhibitively expensive, then I am sure the State and Federal Governments would love to hear from you. You act as if President Obama made a concious choice to place more people on welfare when he got into office rather than economic circumstances dictating that the size of these programs was necessarily going to have to grow because the economic conditions demanded it. You also seem to have a magical bullet idea for creating millions of more jobs than currently exist. Again the Government would love to hear from you. You need to stop listening to pundits and politicians who think that 1/2 the country receives some kind of assistance. They don't. Not even close. Amongst Romney's 47% of households who don' pay taxes are the elderly who already paid their lifetime of taxes and are drawing social security and households of low wage earners who after deductions have no tax burden. It also includes students who earn little or nothing because they are in school full time before beginning their careers and a lifetime of paying taxes. Oh and probably includes him who ended up with no tax burden because he has an army of lawyers and accountants he can afford to find ways for him not to pay...
You are again making my comments into much more than intended. I personally do NOT have all of the answers, but evidently neither does Obama. I realize that half of the country does NOT receive some kind of assistance, but that is certainly the way it is going with the increases we have had in less than 4 years.

Obama did make a conscious choice to place more people on welfare.
Since the Obama has been in power, the number of Americans on food stamps has increased by two-thirds and stands at a record-high 46 million citizens, or one out of every seven people in the United States. Incredibly, this is not “good” enough news for Mr. Obama, who believes not enough people are receiving food stamps. How strongly does he believe it? He is now offering $75,000 grants to organizations who come up with “effective strategies” to “increase program participation” among those who have yet to sign up. Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up.

The growth of welfare spending is unsustainable and will drive the United States into bankruptcy if allowed to continue. Mr. Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget request would increase total welfare spending to $953 billion—a 42 percent increase over welfare spending in FY 2008, the last full year of the Bush Administration.

Although nearly all food stamp households contain working-age adults, few of these individuals are employed. The program fosters a pattern of long-term dependence. While the food stamp program is commonly misperceived as a temporary, short-term assistance program, in reality the majority of food stamp recipients at any given time are or will become long-term dependents. In fact, half of food stamp aid goes to individuals who have received aid for 8.5 years or more.

As far as the thousands without tax burdens, it is due to the loop holes provided by the IRS. These are all legal loop holes which every tax filer uses to every extent possible.
Are You Kidding

Robbins, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122
Sep 19, 2012
 
The Mindless American wrote:
<quoted text>So under your draconian ending of all entitlement programs how are you going to deal with the economic impact that it will bring? The money spent on the Food Stamp program is a huge boon to the food products industry and with the loss in revenues these companies will be forced to lay off countless workers, as will grocery stores nationwide. Farmers will have trouble moving their products which will also cause job losses in that sector. Emergency rooms will be flooded with individuals seeking medical care because they cannot afford to visit a regular doctor. The cost of those emergency room visits will be passed on to those of us with coverage in the form of higher prices for insurance because hospitals must pass their operating costs on to the consumer. With the loss of the lifelines that give millions of Americans a chance you will see ritoing which will cost municipalities billions of dollars. Crime rates will spike because people are deperate to feed themselves and their children. That will mean more police and prisons needed which are vastly more expensive than the programs themselves, unless of course we are to stop feeding our prison populations as well. You ignore a simple fact....there are people who are trying to find jobs already and having difficulty because the job markets are tight. I guess with your model we at least will need a lot more police and prison guards so I guess that is where they will all work. But wait...aren't those jobs primarily government jobs? So now instead of feeding the poor and providing some semblance of a normal life they are either being fed by working for the government arresting and guarding those who couldn't get the police and prison jobs or they are in prison being fed by the government because they committed a crime of desperation. Sounds lovely!
So the food stamp program provides a "huge boon to the food products industry"? I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but is this logic not dissimilar from suggesting that murder is good for the economy because it increases business for funeral homes? Or, that tornadoes are an excellent form of economic stimulus because they provide increased opportunities for the housing industry?
Blondie

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123
Sep 19, 2012
 
Are You Kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
So the food stamp program provides a "huge boon to the food products industry"? I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but is this logic not dissimilar from suggesting that murder is good for the economy because it increases business for funeral homes? Or, that tornadoes are an excellent form of economic stimulus because they provide increased opportunities for the housing industry?
you have lost your mind if Romney gets elected more people will get welfare, he will not make them take drug tests cause when Obama sets that law alot of the ones that are miss using funds won't get it at least Obama has a plan to drug test etc Romney just wants the rich to get tax cuts you need to do your homework
Wondering

Frankfort, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125
Sep 19, 2012
 
Blonde, he is so blinded by his hate for Obama that he doesn't care what Romney stands for..
Are You Kidding

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#126
Sep 19, 2012
 
Blondie wrote:
<quoted text> unless you make 100k a year ya better vote Obama , do some research Obama wants more jobs , Romney wants more tax breaks for the rich !! Obama will win and I can't wait for the rich to pay some real taxes !!! Seriously should a person that makes 100k a year pay the same amount of taxes as a person that works at McDonalds really???? If you do then your either predjise or rich !! Ignore that fact that Obama is black , look at what each one is for then pick!!! And I am white and no I don't date out of my race so don't try and say that !!!
You know what they say about blondes. Well it obviously fits in your situation!!!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

72 Users are viewing the Frankfort Forum right now

Search the Frankfort Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 5 min ChromiuMan 128,923
Curtis Trophy 12 min OMG 2
KY Hundreds of birds die in western Ky. (Jan '11) 48 min hillian 81,559
Grover did your mom 1 hr Grover 1
dylan hurst gets 10 years in prison 1 hr In the Know 29
pain management clinic (Feb '10) 2 hr Crabby Old Man 138
Ridiculous Frankfort: The Line at Cookout 2 hr Mario 31
Those arrested for same thing Miguel was cited for 9 hr Dea 15

Frankfort Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]