[WHITEY]

Is Paulette Braddock really a conservative as she contends?
Is Paulette Braddock really a good steward of our tax dollars?
Can Paulette Braddock really take care of the people’s business with the many problems that she faces in her private life?
I believe that most citizens are aware of the prior arrest records and run in with the law so I am not going to discuss that here in this post.
What concerns me the most is a recent court cases where it was pointed out in the debate that she has been held in contempt of court for not paying lawyers fee’s that she was ordered to pay July 2011.
A review of Mrs. Braddock most recent campaign disclosure reveals she obtained a loan in the amount of $49,600 dollars for her campaign last election that has not been repaid and the total indebtedness from the prior campaign is $59,000 as of March 31, 2012
http://media.ethics....028&CDRID=56058
Is this what Mrs. Braddock alludes to in the most recent mailer she sent out where she states …….
“I spent the past year and a half working hard to make sure that conservative values are represented at the Capitol”
I am of the opinion that a conservative would pay the bills ordered by the courts before borrowing money to run a campaign for public office.

[Wineguy]

WHITEY, on 21 June 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Is Paulette Braddock really a conservative as she contends?
Is Paulette Braddock really a good steward of our tax dollars?
Can Paulette Braddock really take care of the people’s business with the many problems that she faces in her private life?
I believe that most citizens are aware of the prior arrest records and run in with the law so I am not going to discuss that here in this post.
What concerns me the most is a recent court cases where it was pointed out in the debate that she has been held in contempt of court for not paying lawyers fee’s that she was ordered to pay July 2011.
A review of Mrs. Braddock most recent campaign disclosure reveals she obtained a loan in the amount of $49,600 dollars for her campaign last election that has not been repaid and the total indebtedness from the prior campaign is $59,000 as of March 31, 2012
http://media.ethics....028&CDRID=56058
Is this what Mrs. Braddock alludes to in the most recent mailer she sent out where she states …….
“I spent the past year and a half working hard to make sure that conservative values are represented at the Capitol”
I am of the opinion that a conservative would pay the bills ordered by the courts before borrowing money to run a campaign for public office.

She is very conservative.......With her money!!!!! lol

[Truedat]

[quote name='WHITEY' timestamp='1340308911' post='3652788']
Is Paulette Braddock really a conservative as she contends?
Is Paulette Braddock really a good steward of our tax dollars?
Can Paulette Braddock really take care of the people’s business with the many problems that she faces in her private life?


Good questions.

No, no, and no!

[jenilyn]

Wineguy, on 21 June 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

She is very conservative.......With her money!!!!! lol

idk, she was driving a pretty nice Mercedes when she stopped by my house last night asking for our vote.

[Truedat]

jenilyn, on 21 June 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

idk, she was driving a pretty nice Mercedes when she stopped by my house last night asking for our vote.

However, she cannot afford to pay her taxes. Go figure. Hmmmmm.

[feelip]

jenilyn, on 21 June 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

idk, she was driving a pretty nice Mercedes when she stopped by my house last night asking for our vote.

Owes everyone from the IRS to Zerox and sporting a Mercedes. Haven't seen that since I finished my last project in the projects. They had a name for that down in the 'hood.

[WHITEY]

feelip, on 21 June 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

Owes everyone from the IRS to Zerox and sporting a Mercedes. Haven't seen that since I finished my last project in the projects. They had a name for that down in the 'hood.

Just wondering if she still owns the condos in Florida?

[Glassdogs]

WHITEY, on 21 June 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

Just wondering if she still owns the condos in Florida?

Not for very long if Xerox finds out about them.

[Wineguy]

It's amazing she is eligible to be a rep with all of these legal issues.

[LPPT]

I suspect some folks aren't going to appreciate the lobbyist gift limit.
Did I mention it was going to be on the ballot

[Gone]

LPPT, on 21 June 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

Did I mention it was going to be on the ballet

Do we have to wear a tutu?

[LPPT]

thedeerslayer, on 21 June 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

Do we have to wear a tutu?

Did you see what time it is and I ammm on vacation.

[Gone]

LPPT, on 21 June 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

Did you see what time it is and I ammm on vacation.

Yep..... I work midnight to noon,so I'm up at all hours.

[Animal]

WHITEY, on 21 June 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Is Paulette Braddock really a conservative as she contends?
Is Paulette Braddock really a good steward of our tax dollars?
Can Paulette Braddock really take care of the people's business with the many problems that she faces in her private life?
I believe that most citizens are aware of the prior arrest records and run in with the law so I am not going to discuss that here in this post.
What concerns me the most is a recent court cases where it was pointed out in the debate that she has been held in contempt of court for not paying lawyers fee's that she was ordered to pay July 2011.
A review of Mrs. Braddock most recent campaign disclosure reveals she obtained a loan in the amount of $49,600 dollars for her campaign last election that has not been repaid and the total indebtedness from the prior campaign is $59,000 as of March 31, 2012
http://media.ethics....028&CDRID=56058
Is this what Mrs. Braddock alludes to in the most recent mailer she sent out where she states …….
"I spent the past year and a half working hard to make sure that conservative values are represented at the Capitol"
I am of the opinion that a conservative would pay the bills ordered by the courts before borrowing money to run a campaign for public office.

See there you go with that common sense thing,it screws them up everytime.

[TwoKidCircus]

WHITEY, on 21 June 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Is this what Mrs. Braddock alludes to in the most recent mailer she sent out where she states …….
“I spent the past year and a half working hard to make sure that conservative values are represented at the Capitol”
I am of the opinion that a conservative would pay the bills ordered by the courts before borrowing money to run a campaign for public office.

Same thing can be said for Carruth.

[El Zorro]

Shouldn't this topic be in the political forum?

[TwoKidCircus]

WHITEY, on 21 June 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Is Paulette Braddock really a conservative as she contends?
Is Paulette Braddock really a good steward of our tax dollars?
Can Paulette Braddock really take care of the people’s business with the many problems that she faces in her private life?
I believe that most citizens are aware of the prior arrest records and run in with the law so I am not going to discuss that here in this post.
What concerns me the most is a recent court cases where it was pointed out in the debate that she has been held in contempt of court for not paying lawyers fee’s that she was ordered to pay July 2011.
A review of Mrs. Braddock most recent campaign disclosure reveals she obtained a loan in the amount of $49,600 dollars for her campaign last election that has not been repaid and the total indebtedness from the prior campaign is $59,000 as of March 31, 2012
http://media.ethics....028&CDRID=56058
Is this what Mrs. Braddock alludes to in the most recent mailer she sent out where she states …….
“I spent the past year and a half working hard to make sure that conservative values are represented at the Capitol”
I am of the opinion that a conservative would pay the bills ordered by the courts before borrowing money to run a campaign for public office.

Is she conservative enough? Yes. She has gotten an "A" from the Georgia Chamber for two years. I don't see how anyone can't say she doesn't vote conservatively in the legislature.

As for her personal debt, this economy has ruined many a businesses. I have many, many friends that have went under. It does not make them less of a person.

[Wineguy]

TwoKidCircus, on 22 June 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

Is she conservative enough? Yes. She has gotten an "A" from the Georgia Chamber for two years. I don't see how anyone can't say she doesn't vote conservatively in the legislature.

As for her personal debt, this economy has ruined many a businesses. I have many, many friends that have went under. It does not make them less of a person.

Less of a person or not. Having someone who has Federal Liens against them for failure to pay on owed taxes as our representative does not exude confidence. If I am not mistaken there are actually laws preventing people from serving in this office if they have outstanding taxes or other violations such as our current representative.

[Glassdogs]

Wineguy, on 22 June 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

Less of a person or not. Having someone who has Federal Liens against them for failure to pay on owed taxes as our representative does not exude confidence. If I am not mistaken there are actually laws preventing people from serving in this office if they have outstanding taxes or other violations such as our current representative.

She can just claim executive privilege.

[TwoKidCircus]

Wineguy, on 22 June 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

Having someone who has Federal Liens against them for failure to pay on owed taxes as our representative does not exude confidence.

Shouldn't Bill Carruth be held to the same standard, then?

Glassdogs, on 22 June 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

She can just claim executive privilege.

There is no such thing on the state level.

[Wineguy]

TwoKidCircus, on 22 June 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

Shouldn't Bill Carruth be held to the same standard, then?



There is no such thing on the state level.

Absolutely. I feel that any elected official should be required to be in good standing with all levels of the law, be it federal, state, or local. Any outstanding warrants, tax liens, or the like should be immediate disqualifications. How are we to be represented by someone who doesn't respect the same laws their constituents are expected to adhere to.

[mrnn]

jenilyn, on 21 June 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

idk, she was driving a pretty nice Mercedes when she stopped by my house last night asking for our vote.

Ya know, you take something as simple as this comment and..well... here you have a woman who owes money that she can't pay and has a criminal record. Meanwhile, she drives around in an apparently nice Mercedes, keeps her ex-husband's name (who the hell does that?!?), and rarely puts herself in a position to speak to an unfriendly audience (debate questions sound like they were staged, I'll never forget that clip where she was at a meeting about schools and she couldn't answer the question and some assistant stood up and answered for her).

We're dealing with a woman very, very concerned with her appearance who gives little care to the substance behind the appearance. She's obviously shallow.

The question to me is which candidate, James or Morrison, will have the money and balls to nail this woman to the wall with an absolutely vicious flyer? A flyer that will be remembered 10 years from now. Paulette is representing a very conservative district and, within the structure of the House, she can easily vote straight along the party line without giving an ounce of thought to her votes. Point being, neither James nor Morrison can out-Conservative her record...if they're going to beat her it will have to be based on who Paulette is as a person.

She's not an attractive woman, in the least, looks rather trashy imo. There should be a flyer sent out with an unappealing picture of her nice and blown up (looks matter in politics, especially with voters who may not know the issues well, think Nixon in '60)....a mug shot would be even better if there's one available. In bold letters below the picture, the flyer states "This is your District 19 GA State Representative" and above the picture it says "Paulette Braddock" (I'd leave the Rakestraw out). Certainly an eye-catcher and so the voter flips it over and on the backside of this flyer it mentions all her arrests, tax troubles, business troubles, and the fact she was just found in contempt less than a month ago. I mean lay it all out there and smear the living sheeze out of this woman but using nothing but facts on the public record. They could even go one step further and create a website with links to all the public records, basically sourcing all the information on the flyer and mention the web address on the flyer.

Fact is, a lot of people don't know who they're voting for in many of these local races. If you get these FACTS out there on blast, people will notice and will likely be embarrassed that this lady is representing them under the Gold Dome, as well they should be. People say they don't like negative campaign tactics but this is a case where they will undoubtedly work. This flyer wouldn't be trying to make mountains out of mole hills like typical negative campaign ads, these are making mountains covered by clouds into mountains under blue skies.


I hope one of them has the nerve and money to do it.

mrnn

[Wineguy]

mrnn, on 22 June 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

Ya know, you take something as simple as this comment and..well... here you have a woman who owes money that she can't pay and has a criminal record. Meanwhile, she drives around in an apparently nice Mercedes, keeps her ex-husband's name (who the hell does that?!?), and rarely puts herself in a position to speak to an unfriendly audience (debate questions sound like they were staged, I'll never forget that clip where she was at a meeting about schools and she couldn't answer the question and some assistant stood up and answered for her).

We're dealing with a woman very, very concerned with her appearance who gives little care to the substance behind the appearance. She's obviously shallow.

The question to me is which candidate, James or Morrison, will have the money and balls to nail this woman to the wall with an absolutely vicious flyer? A flyer that will be remembered 10 years from now. Paulette is representing a very conservative district and, within the structure of the House, she can easily vote straight along the party line without giving an ounce of thought to her votes. Point being, neither James nor Morrison can out-Conservative her record...if they're going to beat her it will have to be based on who Paulette is as a person.

She's not an attractive woman, in the least, looks rather trashy imo. There should be a flyer sent out with an unappealing picture of her nice and blown up (looks matter in politics, especially with voters who may not know the issues well, think Nixon in '60)....a mug shot would be even better if there's one available. In bold letters below the picture, the flyer states "This is your District 19 GA State Representative" and above the picture it says "Paulette Braddock" (I'd leave the Rakestraw out). Certainly an eye-catcher and so the voter flips it over and on the backside of this flyer it mentions all her arrests, tax troubles, business troubles, and the fact she was just found in contempt less than a month ago. I mean lay it all out there and smear the living sheeze out of this woman but using nothing but facts on the public record. They could even go one step further and create a website with links to all the public records, basically sourcing all the information on the flyer and mention the web address on the flyer.

Fact is, a lot of people don't know who they're voting for in many of these local races. If you get these FACTS out there on blast, people will notice and will likely be embarrassed that this lady is representing them under the Gold Dome, as well they should be. People say they don't like negative campaign tactics but this is a case where they will undoubtedly work. This flyer wouldn't be trying to make mountains out of mole hills like typical negative campaign ads, these are making mountains covered by clouds into mountains under blue skies.


I hope one of them has the nerve and money to do it.

mrnn

I agree. It is going to take something like this to get the message across to the public at large. They need a good viral youtube video.

[Madea]

I seriously doubt most of the folks in this thread would want all of the candidates held to the same standard.

[Wineguy]

Madea, on 22 June 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

I seriously doubt most of the folks in this thread would want all of the candidates held to the same standard.

I would. I do have certain candidates I like better than others. But if those candidates were found to be no better than the others than I would stand by my decision to support whoever is the candidate that will be ethically sound, and do what is best for the district.

[zoo]

who knows but I know she and/or her supporters like wasting money putting signs in my yard without asking...we pick them up and throw them away.

[WHITEY]

TwoKidCircus, on 22 June 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

Is she conservative enough? Yes. She has gotten an "A" from the Georgia Chamber for two years. I don't see how anyone can't say she doesn't vote conservatively in the legislature.

As for her personal debt, this economy has ruined many a businesses. I have many, many friends that have went under. It does not make them less of a person.

I am sorry but being conservative means more to me than a two year voting record, I am quite sure that the Georgia Chamber did not give her an "A" for her voting record while serving on the Paulding County school board.

If you have been held in contempt of court for not paying a court order,And wheeling around town in a Mercedes Conservative?

If you had borrowed $ 49,600 to run a political campaign, And then been held in contempt of court for not paying what a court ordered being conservative?

You do know that the $49,600 personal loan to run the campaign came after the bankruptcy?

Heck.... The recent mailer sent out cost thousands of dollars and yet the campaign disclosure plainly states that as of March 31, 2012 her campaign was $ 59,000 in the red from last election. Is this acting like a real conservative.

Do you really think she is above the laws of the State of Georgia?

[rednekkhikkchikk]

Madea, on 22 June 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

I seriously doubt most of the folks in this thread would want all of the candidates held to the same standard.

I would. All of them.

Anything would be better than the current standard, which is none.

[WHITEY]

TwoKidCircus, on 22 June 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

Same thing can be said for Carruth.

We do agree on this, That is why I am voting for J K Rogers.
Bill Heath is no better either.

[Beach Bum]

TwoKidCircus, on 22 June 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

Shouldn't Bill Carruth be held to the same standard, then?



There is no such thing on the state level.

I agree with you most of the time and love your posts; however, I will have to respectfully disagree on a couple of things:

1) Bill Carruth has not been held in contempt of court, Paulette has. Paulette's contempt hearing was held on May 30th and she was found in contempt of a Judge's order in that she failed to pay attorney's fees in the approximate sum of $8,000.00 on $800,000.00 plus judgment rendered against her last year. The last time I checked, these contempt funds (which have now been increased by $5,000.00) have not been paid. I would be mortified and scared to death if I were in contempt on an action like this. She is simply not paying attention to a Judge's decision in this matter and you better believe it, that bothers me. Bill Carruth is in the process of settling his debt and HAS NOT been found in contempt of court as Paulette has.

2) Paulette has a $37,000.00 plus federal tax lien against her that is still outstanding, Bill Carruth DOES NOT. How can she even begin to pretend to represent our district and draw a paycheck from the State of Georgia when she has outstanding federal taxes that have not been paid? This is a very serious issue. When people like Paulette don't pay their taxes, where do they come from? They come from you and I and all the other tax paying citizens out there that diligently pay our taxes due. The deadbeats that don't pay their taxes is exactly whey the rest of us tax paying citizens have to endure tax increases. If everyone paid their taxes, we would be in good shape. Obviously, Paulette thinks she is above paying her taxes and that really, really bothers me.

If I were in Paulette's shoes, I would be focusing on paying first and foremost my federal taxes that are due - politics and political gain would simply have to take a "back seat" to paying my taxes. I could not, with a clear conscience, pretend that I could do an adequate job of representing the people of my district if I had as many issues as Paulette Braddock evidently does.

This post has been edited by Beach Bum: 23 June 2012 - 06:24 AM

[Wineguy]

Beach Bum, on 22 June 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

I agree with you most of the time and love your posts; however, I will have to respectfully disagree on a couple of things:

1) Bill Carruth has not been held in contempt of court, Paulette has. Paulette's contempt hearing was held on May 30th and she was found in contempt of a Judge's order in that she failed to pay attorney's fees in the approximate sum of $8,000.00 on $800,000.00 plus judgment rendered against her last year. The last time I checked, these contempt funds (which have now been increased by $5,000.00) have not been paid. I would be mortified and scared to death if I were in contempt on an action like this. She is simply not paying attention to a Judge's decision in this matter and you better believe it, that bothers me. Bill Carruth is in the process of settling his debt and HAS NOT been found in contempt of court as Paulette has.

2) Paulette has a $37,000.00 plus federal tax lien against her that is still outstanding, Bill Carruth DOES NOT. How can she even begin to pretend to represent our district and draw a paycheck from the State of Georgia when she has outstanding federal taxes that have not been paid? This is a very serious issue. When people like Paulette don't pay their taxes, where do they come from? They come from you and I and all the other tax paying citizens out there that diligently pay our taxes due. The deadbeats that don't pay their taxes is exactly whey the rest of us tax paying citizens have to endure tax increases. If everyone paid their taxes, we would be in good shape. Obviously, Paulette thinks she is above paying her taxes and that really, really bothers me.

If I were in Paulette's shoes, I would be focusing on paying first and foremost my federal taxes that are due - politics and political gain would simply have to take a "back seat" to paying my taxes. I could not, with a clear conscience, pretend that I could do an adequate job of representing the people of my district if I had ss many issues as Paulette Braddock evidently does.

I say again, shouldn't this make her ineligible to be our representative in the first place?

[NewsJunky]

Wineguy, on 22 June 2012 - 11:23 PM, said:

I say again, shouldn't this make her ineligible to be our representative in the first place?

As I understand the rules about this she is eligible if she has made arrangements to pay the debt or has made a setlement of some sort.

[WHITEY]

NewsJunky, on 23 June 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

As I understand the rules about this she is eligible if she has made arrangements to pay the debt or has made a setlement of some sort.

Well has she made arrangements to pay the debts. Or made a settlement?

[Beach Bum]

The federal tax lien is still showing outstanding in the amount of $36,343.89 for the tax years ending 2006 and 2007. The tax lien is dated June 9, 2011.

I have no idea but I wonder if she also owes for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 also? It takes a while for these to show up.

[WHITEY]

TwoKidCircus, on 22 June 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

Is she conservative enough? Yes. She has gotten an "A" from the Georgia Chamber for two years. I don't see how anyone can't say she doesn't vote conservatively in the legislature.

As for her personal debt, this economy has ruined many a businesses. I have many, many friends that have went under. It does not make them less of a person.

But from the information I just read these tax liens are from tax years 2006 and 2007 which were well before the recession, In fact some three plus years prior to borrowing $49,600 to run her first campaign for district 19. How was she able to run last time?

[NewsJunky]

WHITEY, on 23 June 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

Well has she made arrangements to pay the debts. Or made a settlement?

I have no clue. I was told at one point that she had. Who knows?

[Greatma]

I for one won't be voting for her or carruth. Also, the letter that she sent me is going back to her not opened. I believe you should pay your bills and taxes. I sure don't want anybody that don't , to be making laws that I have to follow. I worked for 55 years and paid taxes, and heck I am still paying on my retirement.

[Wineguy]

We will find out soon. She is being challenged in court on July 3rd. All of this will be brought to light and the judge will decide if she can run.

This post has been edited by Wineguy: 23 June 2012 - 01:02 PM

[Greatma]

[quote name='Wineguy' timestamp='1340474545' post='3653862']
We will find out soon. She is being challenged in court on July 3rd. All of this will be brought to light and the judge will decide if she can run.





I received my absentee ballot yesterday. She and Carruth are on it. Makes
me want to send it back to them.

[Glassdogs]

Wineguy, on 23 June 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

We will find out soon. She is being challenged in court on July 3rd. All of this will be brought to light and the judge will decide if she can run.

Can you post a link to this proceeding/docket/challenge? Who filed the challenge?