Page 62 of 120 FirstFirst ... 1252606162636472112 ... LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 1200

Thread: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

  1. #611
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Your objection repeated remains meaningless without an explanation.

    Why do you find the term "homarriage" offensive?

    Do adult females find the term "woman" offensive or complain about not being rightly with respect to definitive propriety to be able to call themselves a "man"?

    The term "homosexual marriage" or "homarriage" is applicable, accurate, and sufficiently descriptive.

    There's nothing inherently offensive about the term.



    For one, because I don't trust that they are telling the truth here as it is clear they are more compelled to a political power-play agenda than in doing what's right.

    For another because "homarriage" is accurate and descriptive and satisfies definitive propriety.

    And, of course, lastly, because neither you or them are either my god or my own mind, and I won't be harassed into being silent on a matter that I know is correct.



    This is both a projection and an attack upon a strawman.

    Your attempt to use the word "marriage" to apply to SS-couples' relevant relationships is discourteous to definitive propriety respecting society in general.

    You are attempting to belittle society's ability to solve the problem accurately, attempting to impose your point of view on society.

    People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.



    Now you've crossed the line into ad hominem territory.

    Thus your statement here deserves no response.
    Yet all of this shows that you don't understand how words are defined. This is a very basic concept. The word you use is a word YOU invented. That makes it meaningless.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #612
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by Juanita View Post
    Until recent times, homosexual relationships were accepted in all corners of the globe, including but not limited to Greece, Africa, Egypt, China, Japan and other Asian countries, Kings of England, Rome, even Arab and Persian Muslims of more recent times....It is nothing new.
    Who said anything about not accepting homosexual relationships? They will happen no matter what...how many of those allowed the full rights of marriage? Tolerance we will accept, equivalence to heterosexual marriage is not acceptable...sorry. It is not the same, should not be encouraged, no requirement to accept this unnecessary demand.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  3. #613
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    But the terms "homosexual marriage" and "homarriage" do not use the term "homo".

    So, no, I still don't understand your contention.

    Even if you don't like the simpler term "homarriage", what's wrong with the term "homosexual marriage"?



    But again, the two most relevant terms do not employ the construct "homo", so I don't get your objection.
    Actually, they do. This demonstrates you lying.

    But here's what I've decided. You have decided to invent a word, "homarriage". Well, since I have proven that you don't understand how words are defined, and, therefore, you don't understand why the word marriage doesn't mean what you want it to mean, just for you, I am going to invent my own word. Since it seems that certain segments of the heterosexual community... like you... don't understand definitions, it is clear that the word marriage has become such a bone of contention, that I have decided to eliminate it altogether. Because, like you, I can make these kinds of decisions. Therefore, from now on, whenever dealing with you, straight marriage will be called hemarriage, since the word marriage no longer exists. I suggest that all members, when discussing this issue with Ontologuy, use the word hemarriage. It is an accurate definition of what we are discussing... heterosexual marriage. I'm sure that Ontologuy will have no objections since accuracy is so important to him

    Hemarriage. Remember to pronounce it hem' er idge.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #614
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    I posed rational logical questions in response to your previous complaint.

    Yet instead of answering in rational logical manner, you simply say "because I said so".

    Just do not be surprised when people throw up their hands and say "you just want to call it 'marriage' and you could care less what's right".

    Then you finish with an unprovoked ad hominem.

    Throughout this thread, when they have lost on rational, logical debate, those in support of misusing the term "marriage" to apply to SS-couples' relevant relationships are the only ones initiating unprovoked ad hominems when they lose on point.
    You invented a definition that you claim accurately describes something. MY definition does the same. Hemarriage. Embrace it, Ontologuy. When I see a mixed sex couple walking down the street, I'll wonder "are they hemarried" and I will be correct with my definition.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  5. #615
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Wow, captain obvious there…no joke. That was not what I was talking about and so is a deflection...the significance of condoms to candy bars was that if they are distributed by folks students accept as authorities then they tend to automatically think whatever is being promoted is, at minimum, accepted and for many could easily be considered as something that is being encouraged.
    And yet we are not discussing this. YOU decided to bring in a red herring. We are discussing the providing of information, not the providing of items. Do try to not switch the topic. It shows weakness.

    If the school authorities were handing to all students dope smokers "bongs" to any students that wanted them just for “informational purposes” [ besides we know abstinence promotion regarding drugs doesn’t work, so might as well “inform” the kids”, right? ] you don't think some kids might think that the school might want them to go ahead and use them?
    Red herring. We are discussing the providing of information. Do try to stick to the topic.

    No, that’s not the state's right to impose that on children.
    The stated is imparting information. Not imposing. Do get your definitions correct.

    You could use pornography as an extreme example. In an effort to educate, they show, for "informational purposes", the children porn...then it is up to the parents to help the child apply that knowledge? No.
    I do not address absurd examples. Please come up with an example that is not so ridiculous. Then perhaps we could discuss it.

    Stick to the job you are there to do, Teach kids math, science, grammar, etc...
    Information is education.

    Some things are supposed to be left, are the prerogative of the folks who created their children.
    Place your values on whatever information is imparted. That is what parents do.

    The state does not own our children, they cannot tell parents what their children, outside of academics, must know, must learn… that is totalitarian styled thinking, that's what you are promoting.
    The state is providing information. If you do not like the information provided, remove your child. You have the right to do that. It is not your place to decided what information gets presented to anyone other than your child.

    We send our children to school to learn valuable skills, not learn how to put a condom on a banana.
    This is information that is quite important. They did a study once of 20 men and condom use. Of those 20 men, 18 applied the condom incorrectly. The study was repeated several times with the same results. Condom effectiveness is 95% if used correctly. If used INcorrectly, it's effectiveness goes down to 40% or below. This would cause an increase in STDs and unwanted pregnancies. See how valuable information is?

    Your side hase no right to impose this ideological crap on our children… and you should know better.
    This is not ideology, it's information. You should know better.

    No they certainly do not, that is just plain hogwash malarkey silliness. I have never heard positions less ignorant yet so arrogant. I want our children to learn the skills schools are supposed to teach, I will teach my children about the birds and the bees at home…it’s not like man never existed prior to sex ed in schools… Kids do not need to be taught in school how to procreate…or rather to "practice procreating", they have pretty much figured it out all through history without sex ed in school.
    This is all nothing but your opinion, an opinion that has shown to be false by research demonstrating the effectiveness of sex ed. Of course if you don't want your children to be part of this, remove them. It's your right.

    Rather, we should be concentrating at school for what the kids are there for, not what liberals want to indoctrinate them with.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/ed...show.html?_r=0
    In ranking, U.S. students trail global leaders - USATODAY.com
    while all this signals more than just sex-ed-wasted opportunities to teach our kids what they really need to know to be globally competitive, it does say much about the way our liberals have taken over this American institution and done, from so many, too many, angles, such damage on our students…who are, compared to our competitors, often a grade behind level of “ignorant”. How about we concentrate on what we need to, not what your liberal fantasies want us to.
    And yet a report out today showed that teen pregnancies are at their lowest rates in decades. I know that conservatives like you are bothered by this because it demonstrates the effectiveness of comprehensive sex education and makes the conservative position of no sex ed or abstinence only look stupid, but conservatives seem to be used to being wrong.

    If you want to continue to act like a hack, I'll just mock you with it by shooting it right back at you.


    Nope, saw you get destroyed…and not partially, absolutely.

    Must've been someone else. I have always destroyed opponents on that issue. Totally and completely. The ones who deny that live in denial and refuse to accept reality. That's OK. I laugh at them, usually.

    And other than abstenience sex ed works? Yeah, right. It is no business of the schools, that is up to the parents, schools should be concentrating on academics, not all the social and political indoctrination.
    You seem to be having trouble with definitions. Information is not indoctrination. I know you think it is, but just because you don't like what is being presented doesn't mean you can redefine it. It's information. If you disagree, present the definition of the word indoctrination and how it applies.

    And see, this is why I am probably not going to continue to discuss issues with you. For all your experience, you do not have the first clue as to how to debate.
    Actually, thus far every time we have encountered each other, I have made a complete mockery of your position and your tactics... and your response is always to get mad, act out, and get personal. Typical conservative. When he loses, all he does is start with the personal attacks. You guys are so predictable.

    You cannot just declare victory on your statements backed up by what? Your statements? Then declare like a checkmate? That is middle school style debate, hands on hips, chin jutted out nah nah nah naaaaah nah-ish. Not one link, no logic [ except that what you say is supposed to be just automatically true and unassailable, like, right ], no proof, not even any evidence…and then checkmate, give me a break.
    I have provided both evidence and, most effective against you, logic. You have been unable to counter anything except false definitions and no substance. You are debating off of emotion... a very poor debate technique.

    What do you mean indoctrination is not happening? Above you say the “information” HAS TO BE GIVEN WHETHER THE PARENT LIKES IT OR NOT, if the parents do not like it they can send their kids to “parochial schools or home school them.” Many parents do not have that choice, so then the state gets to tell their children what the state thinks is right or wrong, they have the children by law generally 8 hours or so a day, five days a week.
    You still don't understand the word indoctrination, do you? Here. This is the definition I believe that you are trying to use:

    to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
    This means a value is being placed on the issue. This is not happening. Homosexuality is normal. Proven fact. Homosexuality exists. Proven fact. Homosexuality is natural. Proven fact. SSM is a current issue. Proven fact. This is information. Point out where a school is saying "homosexuality is GOOD" or "Homosexuality is BAD". These are value judgements and can be considered indoctrination and should not be occurring in public schools because of that distinction.

    There. I have educated you on the difference. I hope that helps.

    Meriam-Webster, Indoctrinate = : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach 2: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle.
    Excellent. You used the exact definition that I thought you would... #2. Let's see what you did with it.

    That would mean teaching the kids what you think about certain issues,
    And that would be a value judgement.

    your opinion that kids need to be taught what oral and anal and vaginal sex is, how its done, what a condom is, how to properly use it and further.
    No, this is all information. Not indoctrination. Even with YOU posting the definition, you got it wrong.

    Your attempt to give this instruction a value neutral appearance falls flat, of course you are teaching the kids the how to sex, taking the mystery and fear out of it, getting them one more step on their way to not first base, but home plate.
    It's information, not indoctrination. Proven wrong.

    It is not like our students rank first in the world in education…how about we quit taking the time away from the subjects they really need schooled in, that are not controversial? Nah, that would not fit your liberal agenda, so you cannot give it up. And you don’t, you say, even recognize the fact that your side is doing so, amazing.
    Ah. Conservatives. Always missing the big picture. They fail to understand the importance of sex education, how it is an awesome preventative to abortion, becoming poor, having STDs. I guess societal health is not part of the conservative agenda.

    Like I said, you want to present your partisan hackery, I'll mock it. Suggestion. If you don't like it, stop doing it.

    Force feeding them this liberal dribble…again if the schools suddenly decided to teach religion and creationism instead of concentrating on what they should be, math, English, science, history… and if people didn’t like it they could home school blah blah blah, I do not think you would be humming the same silly tune. Checkmate. [ see how silly that looks for somebody to just declare that? But its what you do, empty proclamations based on nothing but your other proclamations].
    You do understand that religion is taught... from an informational standpoint. If I had the time in my schedule, I would have loved to take the Religion class offered. In high school, I had to settle learning about it in history. Took one in college, instead. Teaching it from a values standpoint, however, would be indoctrination.

    That was easy. You are still checkmated.


    Yeah yeah yeah, as per usual, all talk no show.
    I can give you a list of threads dating back to 2006 if you'd like.

    Beaten again. You must be getting used to it by now.

    What a joke. Why don’t you describe for us your definition of a logical fallacy… just so we’ll know what we are laughing at?
    I would think you would know the definition intimately, since your posts are filled with them. But just for you:

    A logical fallacy is a collapse in logic often used in debate to mislead or distract people from the real issue.
    I've already identified red herrings, appeals to emotion, and ad homs. I'm SURE I could find more in your posts if I looked more carefully.

    No, now you need to concentrate on your own partisan hackery… you really haven’t said anything of substance yet, what is there to debate against?
    See, I've already established that you're the one making partisan hack statements. I've pointed them out quite mockingly, since I have little tolerance for people who post like hacks as you have. My suggestion would be that if you don't want to be ripped for doing it, as I have, stop doing it. If you like the ripping, keep doing it and I promise I will oblige.

    I count about two statements of "fact", no actual proof of such, in your end of the whole discussion…then we gotta count up all the whoppers… and its just not worth it.
    If this is what you saw then you don't know what a fact is... and since you have provided NO facts in this discussion, it is fairly certain that you don't.

    Proved you wrong on 1. Giving “information” can easily be equated with acceptance if given by “authority figures”
    This was your red herring. Logical fallacy #1.


    2. That you do not care what the parents/churches think, your way must be the way or it’s the highway = indoctrination.
    Proved that you didn't know the difference between information and and indoctrination even after you yourself posted the definition. This is either denial, self-pwage, or both.

    3. That without the information that your side gives, then students would then become “ignorant”. With the US being considered behind and slipping globally in education
    This was an appeal to emotion logical fallacy. Logical fallacy #2.

    4. You seem to have a high opinion of your “debate skills” that objective others may question heartily. Well, you can take the "may" out of that sentence and it would be even more accurate.
    This was an ad hom. Logical fallacy #3. It also further demonstrated the weakness of your own debating skills.

    5. Much doubt implicated in the accuracy of your knowledge of what a “logical fallacy” actually is.
    Since I showed how you committed 3 already, either you don't know what they are or you do but don't know how to avoid them.

    6. Unwilling to give anything but your partisan view of which side actually engages in ad hom and other non debate winning tactics… going on to call my views partisan hackery [ an ad hom without anything but your statements to back it up ]…laughable….
    Proved how you used your own partisan hackery in an ad hom attempt to further your position... which actually further weakened it... quite a feat since it had no substance to begin with.

    So, in conclusion, I have shown that your presentation was filled with logical fallacies, had no substance or information, and had no impact on what I stated.

    Good job.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  6. #616
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,856

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I would bet money that you never once thought this before it became apparent that same-sex marriage was coming whether you like it or not.


    The number of U.S. states that have banned same-sex marriage, either through legislation or constitutional provisions stands at 36. The total would be 37 if the governor of California and their atty. general with the aid of gay activist judges on the ninth circuit court would have honored the people's vote. When you think about one of the most liberal states voting down gay marriage at the ballot box shows the support for it isn't there. The polls that the left like to point to as showing a huge increase in support are the same pollsters that had Romney ahead in the last presidential election. Also when you study the details of the number of Democrats vs. Republicans sampled, the polls are several percentage points in favor of Democrats where you find the larger support for gay marriage.

    The institution of marriage is under attack. The reason.... the traditional nuclear family is what our government has tried to protect because a stable home that teaches morality to their offspring was/is essential for a free republic to survive and be successful. It takes a moral society for the people to govern themselves. By redefining marriage it makes abnormal behavior equal with normal behavior. Yesterday in post 328, I brought up another way traditional marriage is under attack and that's the increase in the cultural acceptance of incest. States are loosening their laws and in several states now allow first cousins to marry. Punishment for such cases where it is still considered illegal often amounts to only a fine. Those in incest relationships are starting to ask the question if homosexual relationships are acceptable, why aren't incestuous ones acceptable? What right does government have in my bedroom? When you diminish marriage to be simply a contract between two adults regardless of gender to be a civil right, then a lot of different types of unions that society has shunned in the past will follow using the same argument as gays to obtain their "civil rights".

    The opposite of a Free Republic is Communism. The founder of the gay rights movement, Harry Hay, was a card carrying Communist. Coincidence? The greatest support for gay marriage comes from the left side of the aisle. Coincidence?
    Harry Hay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by vesper; 09-11-13 at 06:53 AM.

  7. #617
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    So annul the marriage once a woman hits menopause, then?
    Who said that? You.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #618
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,774

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Who said that? You.
    You guys keep bringing up procreation as if it's somehow important to deciding whether or not a marriage is ok. Apparently it's not important now?

    Ok, so your argument that same-sex couples can't have children with each other is irrelevant. Thanks, but everyone else already knew that.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #619
    Sage
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Coast - USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:46 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,514

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    blah blah blah blah blah...



    You keep posting the same nonsense over and over yet you never are able to back any of it up when called to the point.

    Just flat out admit you personally think the idea of gay sex is "super icky" (except when it's two gorgeous ladies who may be bi-sexual.. since you continually only seem to post about issues with guy-guy stuff, and never post about the horrors of girl-girl...) and therefore you personally are against gay anything. Stop trying to connect all kinds of other things that are irrelevant to SSM as if they matter. They don't.

    Any of us can connect massive amounts of hideous stuff to straight people, and therefore connect it to marriage.

    We've gone around in many circles answering your inane questions and all you ever do is ignore our return questions and post more redonkulous stuff that's irrelevant.

    Tell me, are you married? If so, how does YOUR marriage change if Joe & John, or Sally & Mary are allowed to get married?

    I'm married and I can tell you my marriage won't change one bit. Therefore, the "institution of marriage" has not changed.

  10. #620
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post


    I do not address absurd examples. Please come up with an example that is not so ridiculous.

    LOL. When will you follow your own advice? LOL.

    Don't worry about a thing though. Because of the wasted effort you spent in running circles around yourself with the use of the word "I" in proving nothing, the right will proudly award you the prize of 1st loser in your two person debate with Gaugingcantenate.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •