Mason Rountree

You not working for a Yemenese "liaison", are you?

I realize you said "majority", so you have qualified your statement. However, I strongly agree with Mrs. Howard. That is one of the primary reasons we have not added new employees, coupled with the other reasons mentioned. Consumer confidence is critical to a growing economy and when government creates instability by threatening to raise taxes on those that employ others, the effect is predictable - a lack of confidence in the ability to earn enough after government takes even more money from employers to justify taking more risk by hiring additional workers.

While criticism of the justice system can be justified, I think in this case it is important to understand that the judge's recent decision was largely based on a Court decision made in 1928. The rule of law is inseparable from our justice system, and that rule has been in place for over 80 years. In fact, according to an article in the NYT on this case, the other four-year old child involved in the incident was also sued but did not even assert the defense because of the long-standing rule of law. The Legislature, of course, has the ability to enact laws establishing when a child may be

Agreed they are somewhat different. Valid distinction you raise.

I understand there is some distinction. However, insurance is required in both situations to protect both the insured and the general public. Most auto accidents involve damage costing less than $25K. Without such car insurance, members of the public are at risk of being damaged by the uninsured driver. Similarly, an uninsured patient places the public at financial risk because taxpayers often foot the bill for their medical care. One of the goals of Obamacare is to reduce the cost of such treatment (often furnished through Medicaid), which theoretically saves money for Medicaid.

What about car insurance? Georgia law requires anyone operating a motor vehicle purchase at least $25,000/$50,000 in laibility coverage. I have heard many conservatives make this argument about the health care legislation. I will be surprised if the legal efforts to invalidat the legislation on that ground will succeed, as the same argument could be made to invalidate mandatory car insurance laws.

Thank you for sharing. It was lovely. My wife just completed the first day of the three day walk and is sharing the evening with thousands of others praying and walking for a cure.

I have never had a client participating in the pre-trial diversion program in Cobb, Paulding or anywhere have to admit guilt in order to participate in the program. Nor have I ever heard any defendant having to admit guilt in order to participate. According to the cite provided by Whitey, there should be some form executed by the participant indicating an admission of guilt if it exists. From my review of the records provided in Paulette's case, no such admission ever occurred. If some such document exists, please post it; otherwise, it is wrong to assume that such an admission of guilt oc

The answer is no, we do not/did not represent her in her bankruptcy. Any more stupid questions to this typical lawyer??? Edited to answer the community service question. I assume it was part of the agreement.

I have posted solely as a fellow P.commer and in no other capacity. Frankly, you continue to display ignorance of the pre-trial diversion program.

With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about when you make statements like "a diversion program is an admission of guilt without being recorded as such." Please re-read my post. As for your second question, it depends; however, if a person is withdrawn from the program (ie violating the terms of the program), the State could attempt to prosecute, just as the accused has the right to defend the case. A nolle prosequi is not entered until the person completes the program.

It is abundantly clear from your questions that you did not take the time to read my post.

Pubby: Your statements above are grossly inaccurate. It is true that Ms. Braddock was indicted for a felony crime. However, she did not enter any plea in the case other than a NOT GUILTY plea. She certainly did not enter a nolo contendere plea, which requires a plea in front of a judge. As a side note, Georgia generally does NOT use nolo pleas on DUI cases because the consequences are the same whether or not you plead nolo. In fact, a defendant cannot as a matter of law enter a nolo plea where the BAC level is .15 or more. It is possible to do a nolo plea to DUI, but it is extremely

I'm not sure if it was the special election or the primary. Anyway, I thought I remember seeing a "Steve Golden" declaring an intent to run and initially assumed it was the Steve Golden who I know and who later qualified to run as a Republican. Upon further investigation, it appeared that the person would run as a democrat, eliminating the Steve Golden I know. It's possible that I am confusing it with Brownlee who qualified and withdrew. I figured you would know whether you ever indicated to the SOS an intent to run for District 19 (or some other house seat) and then decided not to qualify

Are you the same Steve Golden that filed an intent to run as a democrat for the State House in Paulding this year and then did not qualify at the last minute? I know you are not the Steve Golden that ran as Republican in District 19.

I'm still wondering the same thing and the responses so far have yet to answer the question. It's not as if someone casually driving through Paulding County would see the sign and think, "Gosh, I didn't realize we were so close to Atlanta. Maybe I should keep my plane there." My only suspicion is that is purely psychological to those who may fly into Paulding (or are flying out of Paulding), so that the emphasis is on the proximity to Atlanta.

If the SPLOST will be used to retire part of our property taxes, why hasn't that already been done? Basically, what I am reading is that the gov't will cut your taxes if we agree to raise our taxes with renewal of the SPLOST. I don't like my chances on that bet. I continue to hear others' justification for the tax that the vote is simply for a continuation of an existing tax, not a new tax. That's good, but how often are we given the opportunity to directly vote for a tax cut instead of relying on the government to "give" us one as if it were doing us a favor? These SPLOST taxes a

What do you expect when the County celebrates 4th of July on July 11th???

The numbers speak for themselves and came from usgovernmentspending.com The fallacy in your argument is that you say the % per year must be analyzed on a year to year basis by comparing the first year in office to the last year, such that if the number is 90% in the first year of a presidential term, 100% in the second year, 100% in the third year, and 89% in the last year, then you would claim that somehow the "gross debt" as you defined it declined, even though the gross debt as you define it increased substantially over the four year term. What happened in the fourth year, in and of itsel

I don't consider myself particularly experienced, but I have done several, including a half ironman, Olympic and sprint. Make sure you don't simply train the individual sports independent of each other. It's very important that you practice your running immediately following the bike (called a "brick") after you feel comfortable with the distances on the individual sports. Start with a half mile or so following a hard ride and work your way up. If you could do a brick once a week, that would be great. It's different sensation the first few times you do a brick. Also, don't just tr

Even accepting your definition of Gross Debt, your contention is wrong. The gross debt as a percentage of GDP under Reagan averaged 42.19% over the term of his office. Under George Bush I, that percentage was 58.28% and under George Bush II, that percentage was 62.18%. However, under Clinton, the average was 63.93%. Only the Obama Administration has had a higher percentage, which is around 90% today. Comparing the Clinton average to the last three Republican Presidents, Clinton's average gross debt as a percentage of GDP was 51.5% higher than under the Reagan Administation, 9.7% higher

I don't hold myself out to be an economist, although I can say that your novel definition of Gross Debt was never taught in the four years I took to obtain my economics degree. I stand behind what is generally accepted to be the definition of the Gross Debt, not as a percentage but as a whole number accumulated over time by annual budget deficits. One other point: a significant reason we have a debt problem today is the failed Social Security system, which has been deteriorating for the past 30 years. For decades after the system was created, we had a massive surplus from the payroll ta

Once again, you are wrong about the definition of "gross debt". Gross debt is actually defined as "the sum of all previously incurred federal deficits...national debt is equal to all government debt outstanding." It is a whole number, not a percentage of some other number; otherwise, it would be called a percentage. The numbers I posted constitute the gross national debt. You have now apparently decided to change your definition to the gross debt as a percentage of the GDP. A much more meaningful figure would actually be the annual budget deficit as a percentage of GDP. Since you

Sound Guy: That's exactly what I am saying about Congress, which is comprised of Democrats and Republicans. Most states have already enacted balanced budget amendments to their Constitutions because of the political difficulties in negotiating a balanced budget without such a restriction. A balanced budget amendment has been part of the Republican platform for the past 30 years and nearly received sufficent votes in 1995 (one vote shy in the US Senate) but for Democratic opposition. If it had passed, 3/4 of the states would then vote as to whether such an amendment is necessary or no

Well Read: You've repeatedly stated that all Presidents other than Reagan, Bush, Sr. and Bush, Jr. reduced the Gross National Debt. However, your assertion is factually incorrect. In June 1945 around when Truman became President, the gross national debt was $258 billion. By the end of his Presidency, the gross national debt, was approximately $259 billion. By the time Eisenhower completed his terms, the gross national debt was approximately $268 billion. During the Kennedy/Johnson's Administations, the gross national debt grew from around $268 billion in 1960 to $311 billion