Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
Animal

GOP and ethics

Recommended Posts

I heard a preacher once say that it didn't matter what denomination you were, the sign was either going to blow off going up or burn off going down. I feel the same way about politics. A political party is no replacement for a good, honest intelligent person that is running for office for the right reasons. Will Avery is running for the right reasons. Good night.

 

That was true at one time I believe. I no longer think so. Obama and the direction the Democrats have taken America is the reason I don't believe it. The Democrat Party is fundamentally transforming (changing) America to use Obama's own words. I don't like the change and anyone who is part of that movement does not get my vote.

Share this post


Link to post

Madea are you a little sensitive? Gee just take your ball and play with someone else. When ever you don't get your way you always say I will vote for someone else. You really make sense on this one,take solo with you poor sportclapping.gif

What a joke. Poor animal are things getting a little hot for you? People running away from you?

Share this post


Link to post

What a joke. Poor animal are things getting a little hot for you? People running away from you?

 

I think he somehow always ends up picking the wrong crowd. :lol: Poor Animal. :drinks:

Share this post


Link to post

// In my very best whiney voice //

Oh NewsJunky, you should just vote for Will. He's not a real democrat, he's a conservative democrat. Don't worry about that money he took from that liberal group, he just needed funds for the race. But, I'm not going to vote for Paulette because I think she might be connected to that evil old guard Paulding GOP. And I can't see the conflict in my statements. I can only see that I think you are wrong for towing that GOP line.

 

////

 

blah blah blah

 

P.S. to Will Avery: This is not directed at you, only those supporting you in this thread. By all accounts, you are a nice man. You are simply not my chosen candidate this time. And I'm at a lower tolerance level tonight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

// In my very best whiney voice //

Oh NewsJunky, you should just vote for Will. He's not a real democrat, he's a conservative democrat. Don't worry about that money he took from that liberal group, he just needed funds for the race. But, I'm not going to vote for Paulette because I think she might be connected to that evil old guard Paulding GOP. And I can't see the conflict in my statements. I can only see that I think you are wrong for towing that GOP line.

 

////

 

blah blah blah

 

P.S. to Will Avery: This is not directed at you, only those supporting you in this thread. By all accounts, you are a nice man. You are simply not my chosen candidate this time. And I'm at a lower tolerance level tonight.

You are right about him seeming to be a nice guy. He is not my chosen candidate either but I do wish him well. Not well enough to win this race though.rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Do you think Howard Maxwell or Bill Heath would embrace Will or Paulette?? It sure helps going in when you've got a support group ready and willing. ;)

Naturegirl

Maxwell or Heath should embrace whoever the voters elect if they are concerned about Paulding County

Share this post


Link to post

Naturegirl

Maxwell or Heath should embrace whoever the voters elect if they are concerned about Paulding County

Oh they will, and I will give you one guess as to who that is! You only get one because we know there are only two choices here.smile.gif

 

Got room for 2 more? laugh.gif

 

 

Absolutely!! It's been too long since we have seen you. Another lunch is definitely in order.drinks.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Got room for 2 more? laugh.gif

Absolutely! :wub:

 

Absolutely!! It's been too long since we have seen you. Another lunch is definitely in order.drinks.gif

 

Let's definitely do that!

Share this post


Link to post

NewsJunky

 

Are you saying that neither Maxwell or Heath would be willing to work with Will if he were to be elected, For the good and well being of Paulding County ?

Share this post


Link to post

// In my very best whiney voice //

Oh NewsJunky, you should just vote for Will. He's not a real democrat, he's a conservative democrat. Don't worry about that money he took from that liberal group, he just needed funds for the race. But, I'm not going to vote for Paulette because I think she might be connected to that evil old guard Paulding GOP. And I can't see the conflict in my statements. I can only see that I think you are wrong for towing that GOP line.

 

////

 

blah blah blah

 

P.S. to Will Avery: This is not directed at you, only those supporting you in this thread. By all accounts, you are a nice man. You are simply not my chosen candidate this time. And I'm at a lower tolerance level tonight.

 

 

You know, I almost would like to see Paulette win just to watch her embarrass Paulding County and especially the Paulding GOP. But I really can't afford any more stupidity from the Paulding GOP. It is time to get this mess straitened out and Paulette doesn't have a clue. What's even worse, the people telling her what to do don't give a rat's pa-toot about anything other than lining their own pockets.

 

Hey Madea, we are actually being rather kind to Paulette compared to some of the other sites. There are some pretty harsh things being said. Are all these things true?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

NewsJunky

 

Are you saying that neither Maxwell or Heath would be willing to work with Will if he were to be elected, For the good and well being of Paulding County ?

 

 

Of course not! I can't speak for either of them. Call them and ask who they are supporting right now today. I bet you can guess and I can too.

Share this post


Link to post

What a joke. Poor animal are things getting a little hot for you? People running away from you?

 

No just you and your side kick Madea, The name for ya'll is the dynamic duoclapping.gif

Share this post


Link to post

No just you and your side kick Madea, The name for ya'll is the dynamic duoclapping.gif

Why do you not go back to putting out signs and leave the rest up to people who know what they are doing. You are doing more harm than good to the people who you CLAIM to support. I bet you are really working for the other side.

Share this post


Link to post

Why do you not go back to putting out signs and leave the rest up to people who know what they are doing. You are doing more harm than good to the people who you CLAIM to support. I bet you are really working for the other side.

 

The sad truth is that I really believe he fully supports Mr. Avery.

Share this post


Link to post

If they claim to be Conservative Republicans and they are supporting or campaigning for the Democrat then I would say to you that they are not conservative nor Republican. Some may even be doing it out of anger because of the election results. More sour grapes. That is not good for anyone. I do believe that the Republican will have a louder voice and will be embraced by both Maxwell and Heath. She is better for the future of Paulding County. If you don't see that then all I can say is that you need to take the rose colored glasses off. I do believe she will be able to advocate for those issues better than Avery. She will even advocate for the conservative agenda and no I don't think he will. One of the reasons is that she already knows a number of the folks she will need to convince. If you don't think folks think in terms of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans then I have just one word for you "Obama". I know what they think of him and why most folks I know are working to get the Democrats sent packing with all that Hope and Change that wasn't good Hope and Change!

NJ, your support of Paulette is just fine, but calling all of Will's supporters neither conservative or Republican is flat wrong. I have no ulterior motive for my support of Will, and I hardly stand with PUBBY on the left. The only agenda that concerns me in this race is the agenda of the citizens of the 19th district.

Share this post


Link to post

NJ, your support of Paulette is just fine, but calling all of Will's supporters neither conservative or Republican is flat wrong. I have no ulterior motive for my support of Will, and I hardly stand with PUBBY on the left. The only agenda that concerns me in this race is the agenda of the citizens of the 19th district.

 

Okay! You go with your opinion and I will go with mine. I think you have one of the best political minds I know. But we will disagree about this. I do not believe for one second that electing Avery is the best thing for Paulding County. I have 2 choices and of the two she gets my vote. I keep forgetting that it took a lot of folks who think of themselves as conservatives to elect Obama and friends.

 

I think my post said "If they claimed to be Conservative Republicans". That is not all of Avery's supporters, most of them are Democrats and some may consider themselves conservative but not Republican. Conservative Republicans will not be voting for him.

Share this post


Link to post

Google Paulette and check out the Topix link.

Damn feelip this link knows more about her that has been exposed on P.com, I wonder what a open records request on some of these alleations on this web site would divulge????? Hmmmm

Share this post


Link to post

I notice the site mentions Kennesaw State, but from the way it is listed, I assume she has attended there, but has no degree. A former BOE member, and now wanting to be our Representative downtown, but she never finished college. I don't hold many to a HIGH standard, but I think your legislator should have been able to complete college. Of course I feel the same way about Casey Cagle as well. He did not obtain a college degree. Nor did Karen Handel.

 

I also noticed Paulette references her membership in Rotary. She has not been heard from or seen at her Dallas Rotary Club meeting since July of 2008, at the meeting before her defeat for the school board by Kim Cobb. I believe she should correct her associations link to say she was a member of Rotary until July 2008 and not lead people to think she is a current member of Rotary. To me it was kind of evident she used Rotary as a networking tool for her business and politics, and when she lost the election and her business was in Chapter XI Bankruptcy, she quit going.

 

Seems some shady build up of credentials which won't pass the acid test.

 

And married for the 3rd time.

 

Maybe this one will take.

 

ZsaZsa Braddock?

Share this post


Link to post

I notice the site mentions Kennesaw State, but from the way it is listed, I assume she has attended there, but has no degree. A former BOE member, and now wanting to be our Representative downtown, but she never finished college. I don't hold many to a HIGH standard, but I think your legislator should have been able to complete college. Of course I feel the same way about Casey Cagle as well. He did not obtain a college degree. Nor did Karen Handel.

 

I also noticed Paulette references her membership in Rotary. She has not been heard from or seen at her Dallas Rotary Club meeting since July of 2008, at the meeting before her defeat for the school board by Kim Cobb. I believe she should correct her associations link to say she was a member of Rotary until July 2008 and not lead people to think she is a current member of Rotary. To me it was kind of evident she used Rotary as a networking tool for her business and politics, and when she lost the election and her business was in Chapter XI Bankruptcy, she quit going.

 

Seems some shady build up of credentials which won't pass the acid test.

 

And married for the 3rd time.

 

Maybe this one will take.

 

ZsaZsa Braddock?

 

 

You must have hit Animal up for some of that mud he loves so much!!dry.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I heard a preacher once say that it didn't matter what denomination you were, the sign was either going to blow off going up or burn off going down. I feel the same way about politics. A political party is no replacement for a good, honest intelligent person that is running for office for the right reasons. Will Avery is running for the right reasons. Good night.

 

feelip, I have to agree with you on this one.

I really wish their were more Independents. I think that if there were more "I's" on the ballot then people would feel more freedom to vote for the person and not the party. There would be less bickering over who has a D and who has an R. Because, in the end, does the letter at the end of their name really matter?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX1h4_OGJ8k

Edited by ivylove

Share this post


Link to post

feelip, I have to agree with you on this one.

I really wish their were more Independents. I think that if there were more "I's" on the ballet then people would feel more freedom to vote for the person and not the party. There would be less bickering over who has a D and who has an R. Because, in the end, does the letter at the end of their name really matter?

Avery could have run as one but chose not to because he says he is a Democrat. It usually says something about their beliefs. If you think the Democrats in Congress right now do not make a difference in what is happening to our economy then I will beg to differ. Yes it makes a difference.

Share this post


Link to post

Avery could have run as one but chose not to because he says he is a Democrat. It usually says something about their beliefs. If you think the Democrats in Congress right now do not make a difference in what is happening to our economy then I will beg to differ. Yes it makes a difference.

 

I think it should be more about fixing what is wrong and not so much about the D/R. This is one reason I am an Independent.

I think what we really need is someone who is smart, creative, sincere, honest and caring, and will really work hard to do what is in the "peoples" best interest. And, will make sure that they first do no harm.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFhlHj7SauI

Edited by ivylove

Share this post


Link to post

Avery could have run as one but chose not to because he says he is a Democrat. It usually says something about their beliefs. If you think the Democrats in Congress right now do not make a difference in what is happening to our economy then I will beg to differ. Yes it makes a difference.

 

First off your spinn doesn't hold water. This is a local race,then this seat is for two years. A good debate between the canidates would be a good indicator,and see which one would be the best.

 

There is a big difference between smear and truth,the closet is located in the home. Sometimes the truth hurts,some can't handle it.angry.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, I get it your definition of mud must be different from mine. unsure.gif

 

 

NJ, your problem is that the only "mud" you have is that Will is a Democrat. And you have about worn that out. Paulette, on the other hand, seems to have more skeletons than a spook house. Seems like every week someone is finding another closet full of her skeletons. Since you know her so well can you tell me if she thought she could keep all these things covered up until the election was over?

 

She's making Richardson and Stout look better.

Share this post


Link to post

NJ, your problem is that the only "mud" you have is that Will is a Democrat. And you have about worn that out. Paulette, on the other hand, seems to have more skeletons than a spook house. Seems like every week someone is finding another closet full of her skeletons. Since you know her so well can you tell me if she thought she could keep all these things covered up until the election was over?

 

She's making Richardson and Stout look better.

 

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not know her as well as you think you do apparently.

Share this post


Link to post

First off your spinn doesn't hold water. This is a local race,then this seat is for two years. A good debate between the canidates would be a good indicator,and see which one would be the best.

 

There is a big difference between smear and truth,the closet is located in the home. Sometimes the truth hurts,some can't handle it.angry.gif

 

Same Party same general ideas. If not it needs to be a different Party. You can't separate the two. I know the Georgia Democrats would like to but it doesn't fly.

Share this post


Link to post

Same Party same general ideas. If not it needs to be a different Party. You can't separate the two. I know the Georgia Democrats would like to but it doesn't fly.

 

The problem is, the truth blows your postulate right out of the water.

 

Conservatism or fiscal responsibility is not confined to one political party. There is an uninformed or misinformed ignorant bias that proclaims to be conservative is to be a republican.

 

Name the last "conservative" republican president to even attempt to have a balanced budget or surplus. There is no truth or political courage in using fake conservative rhetoric in place of actual conservative policy. They led in times where temporary deficits were appropriate but continued the "drunken sailor" spending policies even after the economy would have allowed Gross Debt reduction before they left office.

 

Actual Keynesian policy is undeniably more conservative than the last 3 "conservative" republican presidents. Keynesianism correctly asserts that you spend money you don't actually have for a short time, use that money to build infrastructure and promote long term economic growth, and then (don't forget that most important last phase) begin paying down the debt once the economy becomes more vibrant. We did that during and after the Great Depression. Bill Clinton also mastered it pretty well. In fact all Democrat and Republican presidents seemed to understand how to do it except for our 3 fake conservatives. Our present situation (inherited) is the very first and only time since WW2 that it likely be impossible to lower the Gross Debt during a president's term. (Hey, fake conservatives, IF it happens, it will be the ONLY democrat to fail since WW2 and the only situation to actually justify a Gross Debt increase.)

 

In 1937, Roosevelt gave way too much credence to the fake conservatives who were "worried" about deficits. It pretty much sabotaged the ongoing recovery and caused the full recovery to be delayed. That delay cost the country money that could have been made in increased incomes and (guess what?) taxes on that income. It also prolonged the suffering our grandparents were enduring.

 

Ignoring rhetoric but actually noticing action and policy, Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 seemed to just absolutely love Keynesian stimulus methods except for the part where, when the economy gets better, you start paying the bills. They also seemed to think it unimportant to use those deficits to promote the long term economic health of this country. If the spending had been for infrastructure repair/improvements, energy efficiencies and other actual needed uses of the money that put people back to work and THEN if the resulting new revenues were then used to pay down the debt, they could justifiably be called conservative. They were not conservative or liberal, just irresponsible or incompetent.

 

That is the reason those 3 presidents are the only ones since WW2 who failed to reduce the Gross Debt during their terms. It is also definitive proof that if actions mean more than rhetoric, to call either of the last 3 Republican party presidents fiscally conservative is at best uninformed. It is actually kind of ding-batty. Other Republicans did not fail. All Democrat presidents also succeeded where those 3 fake conservatives failed.

 

I believe it's time for both parties to walk away from the extreme right and left dingbats and begin truthful dialogue. If too many folks continue to use rhetoric instead of actual actions to define conservativism.... well it kind of explains how so many who spout "I'm conservative, he is not..." are so full of crap.

 

And to say that Republicans are fiscally responsible and Democrats not is ding-batty. It is completely disconnected from reality. Either can be either. The ones who proclaim their conservative pedigree the loudet seem to be least conservative. Words do not trump actions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The problem is, the truth blows your postulate right out of the water.

 

Conservatism or fiscal responsibility is not confined to one political party. There is an uninformed or misinformed ignorant bias that proclaims to be conservative is to be a republican.

 

Name the last "conservative" republican president to even attempt to have a balanced budget or surplus. There is no truth or political courage in using fake conservative rhetoric in place of actual conservative policy. They led in times where temporary deficits were appropriate but continued the "drunken sailor" spending policies even after the economy would have allowed Gross Debt reduction before they left office.

 

Actual Keynesian policy is undeniably more conservative than the last 3 "conservative" republican presidents. Keynesianism correctly asserts that you spend money you don't actually have for a short time, use that money to build infrastructure and promote long term economic growth, and then (don't forget that most important last phase) begin paying down the debt once the economy becomes more vibrant. We did that during and after the Great Depression. Bill Clinton also mastered it pretty well. In fact all Democrat and Republican presidents seemed to understand how to do it except for our 3 fake conservatives. Our present situation (inherited) is the very first and only time since WW2 that it likely be impossible to lower the Gross Debt during a president's term. (Hey, fake conservatives, IF it happens, it will be the ONLY democrat to fail since WW2 and the only situation to actually justify a Gross Debt increase.)

 

In 1937, Roosevelt gave way too much credence to the fake conservatives who were "worried" about deficits. It pretty much sabotaged the ongoing recovery and caused the full recovery to be delayed. That delay cost the country money that could have been made in increased incomes and (guess what?) taxes on that income. It also prolonged the suffering our grandparents were enduring.

Ignoring rhetoric but actually noticing action and policy, Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 seemed to just absolutely love Keynesian stimulus methods except for the part where, when the economy gets better, you start paying the bills. They also seemed to think it unimportant to use those deficits to promote the long term economic health of this country. If the spending had been for infrastructure repair/improvements, energy efficiencies and other actual needed uses of the money that put people back to work and THEN if the resulting new revenues were then used to pay down the debt, they could justifiably be called conservative. They were not conservative or liberal, just irresponsible or incompetent.

 

That is the reason those 3 presidents are the only ones since WW2 who failed to reduce the Gross Debt during their terms. It is also definitive proof that if actions mean more than rhetoric, to call either of the last 3 Republican party presidents fiscally conservative is at best uninformed. It is actually kind of ding-batty. Other Republicans did not fail. All Democrat presidents also succeeded where those 3 fake conservatives failed.

 

I believe it's time for both parties to walk away from the extreme right and left dingbats and begin truthful dialogue. If too many folks continue to use rhetoric instead of actual actions to define conservativism.... well it kind of explains how so many who spout "I'm conservative, he is not..." are so full of crap.

 

And to say that Republicans are fiscally responsible and Democrats not is ding-batty. It is completely disconnected from reality. Either can be either. The ones who proclaim their conservative pedigree the loudet seem to be least conservative. Words do not trump actions.

 

 

You have just proven my point. I don't have to say more on the subject!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The problem is, the truth blows your postulate right out of the water.

 

Name the last "conservative" republican president to even attempt to have a balanced budget or surplus.

 

Actual Keynesian policy is undeniably more conservative than the last 3 "conservative" republican presidents.

 

Contrary to your assertion, Republicans have been offering a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution on a regular basis since 1980 when Ronald Reagan became President, largely because of the deficit spending of the Carter Administration.

 

After Reagan was elected, Senate Republicans passed a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1982, but the proposal did not achieve a 2/3 vote in the Democratic controlled House. President Reagan openly supported the balanced budget amendment.

 

In 1995, the House under the leadership of Newt Gingrich passed a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but the proposal fell one vote short in the U.S. Senate. Democrats primarily opposed the amendment. Granted, the 1995 proposal occurred during the Clinton Administration, but it was shortly after Clinton announced the era of big government is over and after the shallacking of the 1994 mid-term elections.

 

Keynesians universally oppose balanced budget amendments, so it is factually incorrect to claim that Keynesians are "undeniably" more conservative than the last three presidents as you suggest.

Edited by Pigpen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Keynesianism correctly asserts that you spend money you don't actually have for a short time, use that money to build infrastructure and promote long term economic growth, and then (don't forget that most important last phase) begin paying down the debt once the economy becomes more vibrant. We did that during and after the Great Depression. Bill Clinton also mastered it pretty well. In fact all Democrat and Republican presidents seemed to understand how to do it except for our 3 fake conservatives. Our present situation (inherited) is the very first and only time since WW2 that it likely be impossible to lower the Gross Debt during a president's term. (Hey, fake conservatives, IF it happens, it will be the ONLY democrat to fail since WW2 and the only situation to actually justify a Gross Debt increase.)

 

In 1937, Roosevelt gave way too much credence to the fake conservatives who were "worried" about deficits. It pretty much sabotaged the ongoing recovery and caused the full recovery to be delayed. That delay cost the country money that could have been made in increased incomes and (guess what?) taxes on that income. It also prolonged the suffering our grandparents were enduring.

 

Ignoring rhetoric but actually noticing action and policy, Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 seemed to just absolutely love Keynesian stimulus methods except for the part where, when the economy gets better, you start paying the bills. They also seemed to think it unimportant to use those deficits to promote the long term economic health of this country. If the spending had been for infrastructure repair/improvements, energy efficiencies and other actual needed uses of the money that put people back to work and THEN if the resulting new revenues were then used to pay down the debt, they could justifiably be called conservative. They were not conservative or liberal, just irresponsible or incompetent.

 

I believe it's time for both parties to walk away from the extreme right and left dingbats and begin truthful dialogue. If too many folks continue to use rhetoric instead of actual actions to define conservativism.... well it kind of explains how so many who spout "I'm conservative, he is not..." are so full of crap.

 

And to say that Republicans are fiscally responsible and Democrats not is ding-batty. It is completely disconnected from reality. Either can be either. The ones who proclaim their conservative pedigree the loudet seem to be least conservative. Words do not trump actions.

 

 

Your post is self-contradictory. On the one hand, you allege what Keynesian economics supposedly stands for. You then claim that Reagan and Bush were actually Keynesians. And then conclude that Reagan and Bush weren't Keynesian at all, and, for that matter, incredulously state that Republicans weren't Keynesian even during the Roosevelt Administration.

 

You've also repeatedly banged your head against the wall about the Gross National Debt. But you then fail to mention that Jimmy Carter with a Democratic Congress proposed budget deficits every year he was in office, including 1980 when the deficit was approximately $80 billion.

 

I don't disagree with everything you have written, including criticism of certain spending in the lat 30 years, such as the presciption medication bill, which costs far more than what was projected. But Democrats have refused and failed to address the failed Social Security System and prefer to take the ostrich approach to governance, including failing to even present a budget yet for 2011, obvioulsy because they know what is coming in November.

 

The stimulus bill was somewhat Keynesian in its approach and, so far, has been an abysmal failure. Much of the pork, though, comprised of political paybacks rather than intending to be a jobs bill. Maybe you and I can agree as to a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution, so that we can minimize the political paybacks of budgets and avoid the inherent problems of even proposing a balanced budget without such a Constitutional requirement. Somehow I suspect, though, that most Dems aren't really interested in walking away from the "extreme dingbats", as you say, because they fail to recognize that they are the dingbats and sit comfortably in their congressional chairs praising themselves as progressive moderates or some other such nonsense.

Edited by Pigpen

Share this post


Link to post

Are we looking for a perfect person?

 

I actually worry more about us electing someone extremely greedy, not only for money but power.

On the other hand everything I have learned about life under the dome tells me you had better be strong because lobbyist will find your weakness and use it to get what they want.

 

 

I would suggest voting for "none of the above" or for Will - I have known Paulette for several years, I am republican, and she doesn't have my vote - i don't trust her one little bit

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please Accept To "ENTER" Have a "BLESSED Day!