Ok, I have a new question based on what I have heard and seen from last night about the D19 race.
Who came up with these questions for last night? The questions were directly aimed at information that Paulette knows about but yet are not in any way the questions that the majority of the people of District 19 care about. Paulette had a piece of paper with her response pre written in reply to all of the questions which she read directly from, while the other two candidates were not given the questions before hand and were just given a vague idea of what might be discussed.
Paulette was on the Zero Base Budget committee and the red tape committee and surprise surprise that was the bases of the first question. The second question is about reducing regulation on small business which does apply to a small portion of the constituents but when combined with the other two questions does not encompass what we wanted to hear about from the candidates in one of the only times we will have them all in the same place.
In what way does Zero base Budgeting have any major impact on the local people and government compared to what we would really like to focus on. And as for the second question about small business regulations, those are almost all Federally mandated or come from agencies such as OSHA, very little is impacted by the State House.
Am I the only person that felt that the questions were directly aimed to help Paulette out and give her an upper hand over the two non criminals in the race?
Are you sure that this happened? There is no mistake? Could it have been something that might be misconstrued?
I am just basing it from observations from last night. I am not saying someone did give her the questions or that the questions were aimed in her favor. But if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its probably not a cow.
I'm not a veterinarian, but I know a horse's arse when I see one.
Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
I am just basing it from observations from last night. I am not saying someone did give her the questions or that the questions were aimed in her favor. But if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its probably not a cow.
I'm telling you, man, the more I learn about the local Republican party, the people, the tactics, the underhandedness of it all, I become more and more dismayed that a dem or independent stands no chance around here. I think it's likely that maybe 20% of voters know what the hell is going on and the rest are just basing their vote strictly on party or name recognition.
mrnn
"Republicans have been fleeced, exploited, and lied to by the conservative entertainment complex" -- David Frum, Former Bush Speechwriter and directer of Republican Jewish Coalition
I'm telling you, man, the more I learn about the local Republican party, the people, the tactics, the underhandedness of it all, I become more and more dismayed that a dem or independent stands no chance around here. I think it's likely that maybe 20% of voters know what the hell is going on and the rest are just basing their vote strictly on party or name recognition.
mrnn
The Paulding Chamber of Commerce put the Forum on last night. You have your groups mixed I am afraid.
I am interested in that as well.
And is MGI not a private company?
Is the county footing some of the bill for the expansion?
It is based on the work of Jamie Gilbert, the city and the county to create an opportunity zone.
It was discovered a few years back that Georgia enacted some laws that allow extra tax benefits for companies that bring jobs to 'impacted' areas. These were basically defined as non-metro Atlanta areas because for the most part, for the last 30 years, metro-Atlanta has chugged along as the engine driving Georgia.
So, people interested in bringing manufacturing or other jobs were encouraged to look at other parts of the state (Macon and Savannah) and they could get extra tax credits for each job brought. And, you didn't need to be that big either - one or two jobs would do.
Now Paulding, which has less than 15 percent of its tax digest in business/commercial development, is 'economically' more like South Georgia in terms of the local economy but obviously it was a Metro Atlanta county when it came to getting benefits for jobs.
David Austin, with Jamie Gilbert, went out and defined an area in the county, that because of unemployment and depressed wages, qualified as a low-income area that really, really does look like South Georgia demographically and got access to the benefits for economic development in needy communities applied here.
What it does is increase the tax credits a company can get by about double per job, applies those credits for new jobs to companies hiring as few as a couple of folks but limits those credits to specific areas of Paulding ... that does include the industrial park where MG International is.
Basically, they get $3,000+ per employee per year for two or five years (I think) that they can take off their state tax bill. These are 'state' incentives and there are several.
I mean Jamie has been by to talk to me about whether I could qualify for these incentives because this is a pretty big deal that comes from the state economic development coffers.
What it amounts to is that combination of state incentives (there are more than just the new employee tax credit - some companies get credits or partial credits for existing workers) was enough to tip the balance for MG International to invest another $9.5 million in the county and hire, an as yet undetermined number of new employes (and retain old ones.)
But do know that is good news and David and even Boyd, pushing along with Jamie Gilbert, are why these companies are being invited in ... and that makes sense.
The Paulding Chamber of Commerce put the Forum on last night. You have your groups mixed I am afraid.
You're probably right...the Chamber is known as one of the most liberal groups in the county Mine was just a general statement...wineguy's opinion of the debate questions is just one more straw on the camel's back that is Paulding politics.
mrnn
"Republicans have been fleeced, exploited, and lied to by the conservative entertainment complex" -- David Frum, Former Bush Speechwriter and directer of Republican Jewish Coalition
It is based on the work of Jamie Gilbert, the city and the county to create an opportunity zone.
It was discovered a few years back that Georgia enacted some laws that allow extra tax benefits for companies that bring jobs to 'impacted' areas. These were basically defined as non-metro Atlanta areas because for the most part, for the last 30 years, metro-Atlanta has chugged along as the engine driving Georgia.
So, people interested in bringing manufacturing or other jobs were encouraged to look at other parts of the state (Macon and Savannah) and they could get extra tax credits for each job brought. And, you didn't need to be that big either - one or two jobs would do.
Now Paulding, which has less than 15 percent of its tax digest in business/commercial development, is 'economically' more like South Georgia in terms of the local economy but obviously it was a Metro Atlanta county when it came to getting benefits for jobs.
David Austin, with Jamie Gilbert, went out and defined an area in the county, that because of unemployment and depressed wages, qualified as a low-income area that really, really does look like South Georgia demographically and got access to the benefits for economic development in needy communities applied here.
What it does is increase the tax credits a company can get by about double per job, applies those credits for new jobs to companies hiring as few as a couple of folks but limits those credits to specific areas of Paulding ... that does include the industrial park where MG International is.
Basically, they get $3,000+ per employee per year for two or five years (I think) that they can take off their state tax bill. These are 'state' incentives and there are several.
I mean Jamie has been by to talk to me about whether I could qualify for these incentives because this is a pretty big deal that comes from the state economic development coffers.
What it amounts to is that combination of state incentives (there are more than just the new employee tax credit - some companies get credits or partial credits for existing workers) was enough to tip the balance for MG International to invest another $9.5 million in the county and hire, an as yet undetermined number of new employes (and retain old ones.)
But do know that is good news and David and even Boyd, pushing along with Jamie Gilbert, are why these companies are being invited in ... and that makes sense.
pubby
so why is the company laying off people and cutting hours if this is suppose to be a good thing? pubby please don't use those big words with me, cut to the chase I know you were not addressing me, but i had also ask what exactly did the 9.5 million mean. so please explain in short terms,
"The most dangerous place in the world to be is "Between a Mother and her Child"
In Loving Memory of My Daddy and Mama
3-29-08and 10-24-2012
so why is the company laying off people and cutting hours if this is suppose to be a good thing? pubby please don't use those big words with me, cut to the chase I know you were not addressing me, but i had also ask what exactly did the 9.5 million mean. so please explain in short terms,
I don't know anything about them laying folks off. I've not heard that but I can imagine a logical scenario where people might be laid off today.
For instance, they may need to update and replace the original equipment/machinery and with not big machine spitting out widgets, the plant may be out of operation for a few months and they don't need the workers in the interim. That could be it or it could be some other similar logical reason ... but the fact that $9.5 million is being invested is on its face a good thing. It means new equipment and jobs that will be here five and ten years down the road.
I don't know anything about them laying folks off. I've not heard that but I can imagine a logical scenario where people might be laid off today.
For instance, they may need to update and replace the original equipment/machinery and with not big machine spitting out widgets, the plant may be out of operation for a few months and they don't need the workers in the interim. That could be it or it could be some other similar logical reason ... but the fact that $9.5 million is being invested is on its face a good thing. It means new equipment and jobs that will be here five and ten years down the road.
pubby
Low paying jobs. The jobs that pay well with MG go to male Japanese. Very seldom you may get a male non American say from India.
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.
Daily Thought: SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES. NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS
Handle every stressful situation like a dog. If you can't eat it or play with it Just pee on it and walk away.
s.l.u.t Stressed-out Ladies Unwinding Together
"People are born so that they can learn how to live a good life like loving everybody all the time and being nice.....dogs already know how to do that, so they don't have to stay as long
I don't know anything about them laying folks off. I've not heard that but I can imagine a logical scenario where people might be laid off today.
For instance, they may need to update and replace the original equipment/machinery and with not big machine spitting out widgets, the plant may be out of operation for a few months and they don't need the workers in the interim. That could be it or it could be some other similar logical reason ... but the fact that $9.5 million is being invested is on its face a good thing. It means new equipment and jobs that will be here five and ten years down the road.
pubby
ok thanks pubby i do know that they have laid off a few employees and cut hours within the last 3 months. and this sounds like something that will happen wayyy on down the road.... as for as the 9.5 million goes.
"The most dangerous place in the world to be is "Between a Mother and her Child"
In Loving Memory of My Daddy and Mama
3-29-08and 10-24-2012
Really? Wow! If any of them come to my house, I will just sit here and look out the window at them. After I calm down from being pissed off for them showing up at my house in the first place and unannounced. Hell, I don't even like it when friends or people I know show up at my house unannounced.
I'm one of those people that if I'm home, leave me alone.
The question is whether they put their appearance at this venue as a high priority or a low priority.
And there are differences in commitments. If the notice were, "candidate X could not attend as his seven year old daughter was hit by a car this afternoon and her father has gone to be at her side as she undergoes radical surgery that might help her learn to walk again. Lets all pause for a moment of prayer to help this child recover," ... we all would have been more than forgiving about the absence.
Now if the commitment were: "I promised my old dog Sandy months ago that I'll watch TV with him on this very night and I can't break that promise and they're playing a rerun of my favorite movie, Twelve angry men so you see there is no way I could come" ... wouldn't leave me with much compassion.
They could have even come back with the statement - a statement - that they will not attend because they feel the debate, from their perspective, is little more than a trap designed to make them look bad engineered by the chamber who is in cahoots with the opponent ... and that they'd rather not be ambushed. That justification could have left themselves with a better outcome than the my dog is sick excuse.
But then, they didn't say. Heck, I suppose I'd have missed the debate myself if, for instance, I was invited to the White House for a beer and conversation.
pubby
Oh, pubby! You were definitely kinder to David "No Show" Austin back in 2008:
Posted 14 June 2008 - 10:18 AM
From what I heard, it was more a concern that the debate would turn out more like one of the game-shows of the 50's ... you know the kind ... where one contestant had the answers and the other didn't.
So I read it as a level of trust thing that that was exacerbated by the fact there was almost no communication or discussion with the Austin camp about the setup for the debate. It may be an honest miscommunication but the idea that one contestant ... I mean candidate ... may have been given the questions is the kind of concern that the current party leadership should have addressed.
I mean I knew there concerns were there early enough to have a segment on it when I did the show on Tuesday.
If the party leaders didn't make sure that the preparations for the debate were transparent, I think some of the responsibility lies there. I mean I heard them saying they didn't even know who some of the panelists were or how they were chosen... and they also wondered why Pcom was excluded in favor of the owner of the site who also owns jerryshearin.com.
pubby
Hmmm, double-standard much, darling? From what you heard, Mr. Reporter? Where's the substantiation? Where was his "come back statement"; we only have your "what I heard" comment. You only have your "presumed defense" from Mr. Austin (based on another one your posts in the same thread and how you don't blame him if that were his reason for not showing...)
Oh, pubby! You were definitely kinder to David "No Show" Austin back in 2008:
Posted 14 June 2008 - 10:18 AM
From what I heard, it was more a concern that the debate would turn out more like one of the game-shows of the 50's ... you know the kind ... where one contestant had the answers and the other didn't.
So I read it as a level of trust thing that that was exacerbated by the fact there was almost no communication or discussion with the Austin camp about the setup for the debate. It may be an honest miscommunication but the idea that one contestant ... I mean candidate ... may have been given the questions is the kind of concern that the current party leadership should have addressed.
I mean I knew there concerns were there early enough to have a segment on it when I did the show on Tuesday.
If the party leaders didn't make sure that the preparations for the debate were transparent, I think some of the responsibility lies there. I mean I heard them saying they didn't even know who some of the panelists were or how they were chosen... and they also wondered why Pcom was excluded in favor of the owner of the site who also owns jerryshearin.com.
pubby
Hmmm, double-standard much, darling? From what you heard, Mr. Reporter? Where's the substantiation? Where was his "come back statement"; we only have your "what I heard" comment. You only have your "presumed defense" from Mr. Austin (based on another one your posts in the same thread and how you don't blame him if that were his reason for not showing...)
Really? Wow! If any of them come to my house, I will just sit here and look out the window at them. After I calm down from being pissed off for them showing up at my house in the first place and unannounced. Hell, I don't even like it when friends or people I know show up at my house unannounced.
I'm one of those people that if I'm home, leave me alone.
I'm not a fan of an unannounced visitors either. I made my husband answer the door.
today is tomorrow's yesterday.
If they laugh at you because you're different, laugh at them because they're all the same.
I'm not a fan of an unannounced visitors either. I made my husband answer the door.
You go girl! We just sit here and watch the people go to the door. And most of them can see me through the window and I don't budge. All the while my dog is barking her head off. lol
I know for a fact that Tony and his wife have been caring for a terminally ill friend. He was at the hospital with him yesterday, I do not know if this is where he was at the time of the debate. This person who is terminally ill has no home and no place to go and is illiterate. Tony and his wife have opened their home to him and are taking care of him and his animals. Tony goes to the doctor and hospital with this person so that he can explain what the doctors want to do and to be his advocate.
Tony is our next door neighbor and I will be voting for him for Commissioner Chair.
Tony is a man of his word and he has always been straight with us and the rest of our neighbors.
Life is short, Break the rules, Forgive quickly, Kiss slowly, Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably, And never regret anything that made you smile...
Support Scouting!
www.pack735.net
www.pickettsmillbsa.org
"Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you: Jesus Christ & the American Soldier--One died for your soul, the other for your freedom." Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr. USAF
The question is whether they put their appearance at this venue as a high priority or a low priority.
And there are differences in commitments. If the notice were, "candidate X could not attend as his seven year old daughter was hit by a car this afternoon and her father has gone to be at her side as she undergoes radical surgery that might help her learn to walk again. Lets all pause for a moment of prayer to help this child recover," ... we all would have been more than forgiving about the absence.
Now if the commitment were: "I promised my old dog Sandy months ago that I'll watch TV with him on this very night and I can't break that promise and they're playing a rerun of my favorite movie, Twelve angry men so you see there is no way I could come" ... wouldn't leave me with much compassion.
They could have even come back with the statement - a statement - that they will not attend because they feel the debate, from their perspective, is little more than a trap designed to make them look bad engineered by the chamber who is in cahoots with the opponent ... and that they'd rather not be ambushed. That justification could have left themselves with a better outcome than the my dog is sick excuse.
But then, they didn't say. Heck, I suppose I'd have missed the debate myself if, for instance, I was invited to the White House for a beer and conversation.
Oh, pubby! You were definitely kinder to David "No Show" Austin back in 2008:
Posted 14 June 2008 - 10:18 AM
From what I heard, it was more a concern that the debate would turn out more like one of the game-shows of the 50's ... you know the kind ... where one contestant had the answers and the other didn't.
So I read it as a level of trust thing that that was exacerbated by the fact there was almost no communication or discussion with the Austin camp about the setup for the debate. It may be an honest miscommunication but the idea that one contestant ... I mean candidate ... may have been given the questions is the kind of concern that the current party leadership should have addressed.
I mean I knew there concerns were there early enough to have a segment on it when I did the show on Tuesday.
If the party leaders didn't make sure that the preparations for the debate were transparent, I think some of the responsibility lies there. I mean I heard them saying they didn't even know who some of the panelists were or how they were chosen... and they also wondered why Pcom was excluded in favor of the owner of the site who also owns jerryshearin.com.
pubby
Hmmm, double-standard much, darling? From what you heard, Mr. Reporter? Where's the substantiation? Where was his "come back statement"; we only have your "what I heard" comment. You only have your "presumed defense" from Mr. Austin (based on another one your posts in the same thread and how you don't blame him if that were his reason for not showing...)
I obviously had some contact with David Austin's campaign at that time.
The last time I saw Tony was at the Memorial Day event. I think he makes it a point to keep me ignorant of his campaign. While he's promised one interview - I've offered him more - I have no idea when he is going to decide to visit on the record.
It is obvious I say what I know. If I don't know something, I don't say it.
I have to say that the first time I heard the story about the ill homeless fellow was from Ed Caapman at the PBA board meeting ... which was after the last time I was in this topic. I see someone posted that and that's fine.
I can see that Tony absolutely puts his personal commitment to the gentleman above the task of campaigning and communicating with the voters. This says that he is, without question, a nice guy who'd give the shirt off his back for a person in need.
I already knew that about him. No question that Tony is a nice guy.
What I don't know, is how he feels on various issues, topics and how he plans to use the office of commission chairman to improve the lot of the community as a whole. I mean I don't know if Tony can even speak in public without having an anxiety attack? Will he spend his time visiting friends in the hospital instead of attending commission meetings? What exactly are his priorities?
So while I' know he is a people person, those are just some of the things that I don't know about Tony.
I know - I know - he's running his campaign his way! He is setting his priorities and appearing in public to speak to a crowd is not a priority for him or his campaign. I can see that is his choice.
Personally, I think it is a bad choice that suggests that he doesn't take the responsibilities of the office he is seeking seriously.
But there is one more thing I'm sure of. Yes, I'm positive that he doesn't care one whit what I think (nor do some of you.)
EXACTLY!!! I truly don't understand how people can just look over these facts about Paulette. She is a nice person but, a nice person who owes over $37,000.00 in delinquent taxes, has a substantial $800,000 plus judgment against her, was found in contempt of court, etc.
I personally just couldn't, with a clear conscience, attempt to represent thousands of people if I had these type issues, but that's just me.........
I am so glad to see this. I had been wondering how you felt about her...
~~Just so you know, GNAT is spelled with a G and not a K~~
I think he has a huge compressor somewhere and flips the switch after 2 paragraphs to make sure the 1000 word virtual requirement is met. Readers Digest would never have hired him.
I think he has a huge compressor somewhere and flips the switch after 2 paragraphs to make sure the 1000 word virtual requirement is met. Readers Digest would never have hired him.
I obviously had some contact with David Austin's campaign at that time.
The last time I saw Tony was at the Memorial Day event. I think he makes it a point to keep me ignorant of his campaign. While he's promised one interview - I've offered him more - I have no idea when he is going to decide to visit on the record.
It is obvious I say what I know. If I don't know something, I don't say it.
I have to say that the first time I heard the story about the ill homeless fellow was from Ed Caapman at the PBA board meeting ... which was after the last time I was in this topic. I see someone posted that and that's fine.
I can see that Tony absolutely puts his personal commitment to the gentleman above the task of campaigning and communicating with the voters. This says that he is, without question, a nice guy who'd give the shirt off his back for a person in need.
I already knew that about him. No question that Tony is a nice guy.
What I don't know, is how he feels on various issues, topics and how he plans to use the office of commission chairman to improve the lot of the community as a whole. I mean I don't know if Tony can even speak in public without having an anxiety attack? Will he spend his time visiting friends in the hospital instead of attending commission meetings? What exactly are his priorities?
So while I' know he is a people person, those are just some of the things that I don't know about Tony.
I know - I know - he's running his campaign his way! He is setting his priorities and appearing in public to speak to a crowd is not a priority for him or his campaign. I can see that is his choice.
Personally, I think it is a bad choice that suggests that he doesn't take the responsibilities of the office he is seeking seriously.
But there is one more thing I'm sure of. Yes, I'm positive that he doesn't care one whit what I think (nor do some of you.)
I can live with that
pubby
PS: Tabby ... no.
Calling bullcheeze and bias here, pubby.
"You were in the know"? Guess it's safe to say "I'm in the know" for Mr. Crowe and he wasn't sitting around watching TV with his dog!
You can say it was a "bad choice" that Mr. Crowe didn't participate in this recent debate, but that is your biased opinion!
And you show your bias even more when you say, "he doesn't take the responsibilities of the office he is seeking seriously" b/c he doesn't/won't talk to you? Sounds like someone has boo-boo feelings that someone else might actually think the almighty pubby and p.com is not the end-all/be-all of Paulding County. And to say, "I can live with that" in reference to the chance that Mr. Crowe doesn't care on whit what you say, but it's obvious you do when you make your snide comments.
Maybe if p.com weren't so much like the Jerry Springer show and was a viable news outlet (and not so obviously biased), he'd talk to you. You claim "40,000 hits a year", but how many of those people actually stay? I see the same posters day in and day out. Sometimes p.com gets someone new, but most don't continue to come here after seeing what goes on.
This post has been edited by Epiphany: 21 June 2012 - 09:21 AM
Where would we be without the agitators of the world attaching the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance?
"You were in the know"? Guess it's safe to say "I'm in the know" for Mr. Crowe and he wasn't sitting around watching TV with his dog!
You can say it was a "bad choice" that Mr. Crowe didn't particpate in this recent debate, but that is your biased opinion!
And you show your bias even more when you say, "he doesn't take the responsibilities of the office he is seeking seriously" b/c he doesn't/won't talk to you? Sounds like someone has boo-boo feelings that someone else might actually think the almighty pubby and p.com is not the end-all/be-all of Paulding County. And to say, "I can live with that" in reference to the chance that Mr. Crowe doesn't care on whit what you say, but it's obvious you do when you make your snide comments.
Maybe if p.com weren't so much like the Jerry Springer show and was a viable news outlet (and not so obviously biased), he'd talk to you. You claim "40,000 hits a year", but how many of those people actually stay? I see the same posters day in and day out. Sometimes p.com gets someone new, but most don't continue to come here after seeing what goes on.
We don't count hits, we count visits. Last I checked the average visit was about 8 minutes, of course stats change from month to month.
David was given just as hard of a time as a no show.
As far as what goes on here, go to any news outlet that has a remark section on the site, what is said on here is very mild.
Some believe that we should control people's comments according to their own agenda.
We haven't tried to shut you up, no matter how ugly you talk about us.
We don't count hits, we count visits. Last I checked the average visit was about 8 minutes, of course stats change from month to month.
David was given just as hard of a time as a no show.
As far as what goes on here, go to any news outlet that has a remark section on the site, what is said on here is very mild.
Some believe that we should control people's comments according to their own agenda.
We haven't tried to shut you up, no matter how ugly you talk about us.
Sorry that I don't drink the p.com kool-aid, LPPT.
And I talk ugly about you guys? Sounds like more boo-boo feelings. And the main reason I snap back at you guys is b/c I defend others that either (1) don't drink the kool-aid or (2) aren't here to defend themselves. You guys get to sling away, but the second someone goes against the grain, and demand that you call out others (in your group) for doing the same thing, I'm the bad guy. Riiighhhtt!
BTW, I think this most recent post says a LOT about p.com:
Sorry that I don't drink the p.com kool-aid, LPPT.
And I talk ugly about you guys? Sounds like more boo-boo feelings. And the main reason I snap back at you guys is b/c I defend others that either (1) don't drink the kool-aid or (2) aren't here to defend themselves. You guys get to sling away, but the second someone goes against the grain, and demand that you call out others (in your group) for doing the same thing, I'm the bad guy. Riiighhhtt!
BTW, I think this most recent post says a LOT about p.com:
Sorry that I don't drink the p.com kool-aid, LPPT.
And I talk ugly about you guys? Sounds like more boo-boo feelings. And the main reason I snap back at you guys is b/c I defend others that either (1) don't drink the kool-aid or (2) aren't here to defend themselves. You guys get to sling away, but the second someone goes against the grain, and demand that you call out others (in your group) for doing the same thing, I'm the bad guy. Riiighhhtt!
BTW, I think this most recent post says a LOT about p.com:
Go somewhere else if it's that bad for you. Where people think the same way you do. No controversy, no arguments, no bitterness.
I sound bitter? *snort* Are you not reading the same p.com I am?
P.com has become Jerry Springer High School. If you arent with the "in crowd", you get pushed aside or attacked. Heaven forbid you go against the status quo!
Where would we be without the agitators of the world attaching the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance?
I know for a fact that Tony and his wife have been caring for a terminally ill friend. He was at the hospital with him yesterday, I do not know if this is where he was at the time of the debate. This person who is terminally ill has no home and no place to go and is illiterate. Tony and his wife have opened their home to him and are taking care of him and his animals. Tony goes to the doctor and hospital with this person so that he can explain what the doctors want to do and to be his advocate.
Tony is our next door neighbor and I will be voting for him for Commissioner Chair.
Tony is a man of his word and he has always been straight with us and the rest of our neighbors.
Oh I read somewhere he had dinner with his preacher.
... snip ...
You can say it was a "bad choice" that Mr. Crowe didn't participate in this recent debate, but that is your biased opinion!
... snip ...
I love it when people make the leap ... that my opinion is biased ... and their opinion is not.
Damn right my opinion is biased. It is biased toward wanting a politician to stand on a stump like every other politician before them and speak to the people and tell them in groups of five, ten, twenty, even a hundred or two hundred why they ought to be given the sacred trust of office.
When someone ducks apparently ever opportunity to do so ... or almost every opportunity ... I my BIASED opinion is is disrespecting not only the ten, twenty, fifty, hundred or two-hundred people who gathered hopefully to see and hear him, but our forefathers who also insisted that those who wanted to hold office get off their butts, stand in front of a crowd and tell us something.
The idea that a politician can speak privately to this group about a public office and then speak privately to that group and privately to that group, and privately and privately is frankly someone who is in my BIASED opinion trying to privatize something that ought to be public.
And yes, I think it was a dumb idea to duck the public at the debate.
I think if he doesn't have the guts to stand up and public and talk about a public job and tell the public what they need to hear on why he should be given this public job, he ought to quit and walk away.
If he insists on campaigning one on one privately and exclusively, that decision alone is, IMO, enough to disqualify him.
Why? Because the only thing he's communicating 'privately' is his disdain, distrust and disregard for the public and what ought to be public information.
If he disagrees, he ought to save his money and stay in private life where we don't care what secrets he hatches and what secret deals he makes... because they're all private.
What is particularly galling is that about the only campaign thrust on his web site is the notion that what is wrong is government is not open enough. He calls it the open government initiative and says, "I believe what Paulding County lacks, is a degree of openness that will allow full participation by the citizens and provide a level of accountability that we have to date, never experienced. I intend to put forth a blueprint for a new initiative to open up all aspects of our county government to hopefully end the vicious cycle of electing new officials and then voting them out the following election in a wave of dissatisfaction. Once implemented, I believe that this initiative will make our county government a true instrument that is by the people, for the people, and accountable to the people of Paulding County."
Tony, I wish you'd have made that case Tuesday night. If you believed in this idea, frankly, no one could have stopped you or shut you up from making that case. Fact is if you really believed that, you'd be yelling it from every street corner to as many people as you could gather.
And if you were acting that way, acting like you believed that open government were really the answer and you were the man to bring it, you could make me a believer.
But Tony, actions speak louder than words. And secret actions, secret promises, secret deals have one thing in common, they're all hatched in secret. When you won't even appear in public, what are we to think?
Oh, I know ... pubby is biased and should be ignored.
1340315097[/url]' post='3652916']
I love it when people make the leap ... that my opinion is biased ... and their opinion is not.
Damn right my opinion is biased. It is biased toward wanting a politician to stand on a stump like every other politician before them and speak to the people and tell them in groups of five, ten, twenty, even a hundred or two hundred why they ought to be given the sacred trust of office.
When someone ducks apparently ever opportunity to do so ... or almost every opportunity ... I my BIASED opinion is is disrespecting not only the ten, twenty, fifty, hundred or two-hundred people who gathered hopefully to see and hear him, but our forefathers who also insisted that those who wanted to hold office get off their butts, stand in front of a crowd and tell us something.
The idea that a politician can speak privately to this group about a public office and then speak privately to that group and privately to that group, and privately and privately is frankly someone who is in my BIASED opinion trying to privatize something that ought to be public.
And yes, I think it was a dumb idea to duck the public at the debate.
I think if he doesn't have the guts to stand up and public and talk about a public job and tell the public what they need to hear on why he should be given this public job, he ought to quit and walk away.
If he insists on campaigning one on one privately and exclusively, that decision alone is, IMO, enough to disqualify him.
Why? Because the only thing he's communicating 'privately' is his disdain, distrust and disregard for the public and what ought to be public information.
If he disagrees, he ought to save his money and stay in private life where we don't care what secrets he hatches and what secret deals he makes... because they're all private.
What is particularly galling is that about the only campaign thrust on his web site is the notion that what is wrong is government is not open enough. He calls it the open government initiative and says, "I believe what Paulding County lacks, is a degree of openness that will allow full participation by the citizens and provide a level of accountability that we have to date, never experienced. I intend to put forth a blueprint for a new initiative to open up all aspects of our county government to hopefully end the vicious cycle of electing new officials and then voting them out the following election in a wave of dissatisfaction. Once implemented, I believe that this initiative will make our county government a true instrument that is by the people, for the people, and accountable to the people of Paulding County."
Tony, I wish you'd have made that case Tuesday night. If you believed in this idea, frankly, no one could have stopped you or shut you up from making that case. Fact is if you really believed that, you'd be yelling it from every street corner to as many people as you could gather.
And if you were acting that way, acting like you believed that open government were really the answer and you were the man to bring it, you could make me a believer.
But Tony, actions speak louder than words. And secret actions, secret promises, secret deals have one thing in common, they're all hatched in secret. When you won't even appear in public, what are we to think?
Oh, I know ... pubby is biased and should be ignored.
pubby
*YAWN* - one of the differences between us though, dear pubby, is that I never claimed to be a journalist or reporter. Here's a novel concept: keep your opinions to yourself and just report the news. Just b/c it's your site, if you want to be taken seriously as a reporter to people in the big world outside of p.com, JUST THE FACTS and K.I.S.S. A reporter's job is to present a balanced story, something you have not grasped, despite your "qualifications".
*YAWN* - one of the differences between us though, dear pubby, is that I never claimed to be a journalist or reporter. Here's a novel concept: keep your opinions to yourself and just report the news. Just b/c it's your site, if you want to be taken seriously as a reporter to people in the big world outside of p.com, JUST THE FACTS and K.I.S.S. A reporter's job is to present a balanced story, something you have not grasped, despite your "qualifications".
So you admit you are not a reporter, you are not a journalist; you are a publisher and p.com is just an editorial site, not a news site.
That explains a lot. Thank you for your clarification.
When did the Republican Party start gravitating toward candidates with the no formal education? First was Paulette and now Mr. Crowe. Not trying to be ugly here but my God, there is a huge responsibility on these people and they can't do like Paulette did her freshman term and go along with the crowd. That is not representing the constituents. I am really at a loss for any reasonable explanation here.
Maybe poker's just not your game Ike. I know! Let's have a spelling contest!
When did the Republican Party start gravitating toward candidates with the no formal education? First was Paulette and now Mr. Crowe. Not trying to be ugly here but my God, there is a huge responsibility on these people and they can't do like Paulette did her freshman term and go along with the crowd. That is not representing the constituents. I am really at a loss for any reasonable explanation here.
Okay, wait, hold up, are you saying these two don't have an education? At least graduated from high school?
Okay, okay, I hear ya. But I'm confused for the simple fact, if it's whom I'm thinking of, we don't know if they had to quit school and help with the family or what not.
What I meant on confused, I don't know how I would feel about someone taking office that doesn't have a formal education. Isn't that one of the criteria's? I mean, I wouldn't want someone to represent me in any fashion if they don't have an education, but at the same time, we don't know the REAL reason why they would quit school.
Now if this is hear say, then I'm done with this topic, unless there is true facts to back it up. At the same time, l wasn't voting for them any how.
1340322027[/url]' post='3652996']
When did the Republican Party start gravitating toward candidates with the no formal education? First was Paulette and now Mr. Crowe. Not trying to be ugly here but my God, there is a huge responsibility on these people and they can't do like Paulette did her freshman term and go along with the crowd. That is not representing the constituents. I am really at a loss for any reasonable explanation here.
I was merely pointing out that,when I thought pubby was a reporter and/or a journalist, that he should stop being biased in his stories. Now that pubby has stated he is not a reporter and/ or journalist and p.com is simply an editorial site, there is no need for me to continue to try to get unbiased stories from him or this site.
Where would we be without the agitators of the world attaching the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance?
So you admit you are not a reporter, you are not a journalist; you are a publisher and p.com is just an editorial site, not a news site.
That explains a lot. Thank you for your clarification.
You have no idea of what small business is like ... (You know I could say I am an entrepreneur as well.) ... but do know that only in New York and big business, do people have such highly defined roles that they are excused from doing things in other realms.
For the record, if you see it on the fastread page it is news. I try to present most of that news in video "here is what actually happened' format but - and this applies to the first topic - If it is the first topic on the fastread page, it is straight news. I rarely if ever sign (pubby at the end) news stories nor do I give myself a byline.
If you see my name on the topic (pubby at the end of the post) and it is in the cafe or whereever, it is conversation and by definition, a personal conversation which may or may not but probably does include opinion.
The original post in this topic was, for instance, the facts as I knew them.
Comments after the first post in the topic - those that appear on the fastread portal page - are usually from members and are considered conversation and opinion.
BTW: As one of the prime innovators of the forum as a news/cms and one of its most active proponents, frankly I've had to invent the conventions of how this is done. These conventions are possibly unique to Paulding.com but know this with etched in stone certainty, there were no rules when I started this sucker ... and the rule that exist are the ones that I wrote.
Help
Wineguy, on 20 June 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:
Promote to Article
Mine was just a general statement...wineguy's opinion of the debate questions is just one more straw on the camel's back that is Paulding politics.
She wanted to leave a sign in our yard. We politely declined.
