Nice Green

I'd argue that a church isn't a public place. They don't have to allow you inside.

And I'm sure people who have concealed weapon permits carry because they have a reasonable expectation that their gun might protect them in case something were to happen. The right to swing my fists ends where your nose begins—meaning my rights should never trump yours. And vice versa. If the law allows citizens to carry concealed weapons, they should be allowed to. Just because a gun scares you or offends you doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to carry. That said, I believe churches should have the right to ban guns—they are a private entity. If there is supposed to be a separation o

But you're not owed any individual liberty in a movie theater. Theaters can have you enter through metal detectors. They can have video cameras placed around their facility. They can search your bag if they want to, and remove and confiscate your belongings if they feel a need to. By becoming a customer and entering the premises, you're subjecting yourself to the rules and regulations of the theater, which is a private business. I went to a midnight screening of TDKR and saw a few people in costume. Now those people can't dress up for the movie. But it's the theater's right to ban them fro

This issue isn't with one guy who has a belief on the fringe. You said "I think a lot of Conservatives don't want women to have the right to vote." And then you pull one, and only one, example of someone who actually believes that. How do you not see that your comments can be construed as badmouthing a significant number of people? It'd be like someone saying "I know Joe Bob beat his wife, and he goes to the First And Only Baptist Church of Paulding County, so therefore I think a lot of members of the First And Only Baptist Church of Paulding County beat their spouses." One, it's a bla

Even your original post said "I think a lot of Conservatives don't want women to have the right to vote, whether they are liberal, or whatever they are. " Again, name five actual conservatives who believe that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Or cite any kind of supporting evidence. Or just admit that you're painting with a very broad brush. Do I even need to address what else you said? "Is that because those Conservatives like gay men, instead? Or should gay men not have the right to vote, either? What about Black Americans, do conservatives think they should not have the right

How many is "some," TP? Is one person "some"? Because this Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is the only person you've been able to cite as a conservative who believes women shouldn't be able to vote. By saying that "some conservatives" believe that women shouldn't be able to vote, without citing more than one specific person, you're basically trying to say that there is a significant number of conservatives who feel that's way. Who are we to assume you're implicating by saying "some conservatives"? Are Paulding's GOP candidates part of that "some"? What about those running for state office?

Who are these "some conservatives"? You're making broad comments to demonize an entire group of people, when in fact you probably can't name five prominent conservatives (Joe Bob down the street doesn't county) who believe that women should not have the right to vote. Newsflash: Every person running for a Paulding County office is running under the GOP banner, so they're more than likely conservative. Would you say that any of them don't have the right to vote? Would you say that they like gay men, too?

You keep repeating that phrase "biased hit jobs" and yet you've never addressed why critics of your "study" have called it that despite posting the link where that phrase originated.

Second? He's created at least a dozen threads about this so-called "integrity" study.

I don't understand the headline. How did the challenge "win on a technicality" when the story clearly says that it was tossed out?

Don't tell the same people mad about this issue where their iPhones and iPads are made.

Since when does "rollback" mean increase?

Wow, a 14-percent sales increase! Who would approve such a thing! Let's look at the math. Take Joe Sixpack, who takes home $24,000 a year. That's $2,000 a month. Let's say $1,000 of that per month goes to groceries, eating out, movie tickets, etc. (basically anything that incurs a sales tax. At 7 percent, he'd pay $70 a month. At 8 percent, $80. We're talking $10 more a month, or $120 for the year. That's one less trip to Moe's, two less Starbucks coffees, or one less trip to the movies a month. Are we really going to gnash our teeth over this? Now let's say that after a few ye

Your headline: Should Women Not Be Alowed To Vote FOX CONTRIBUTER JESSY LEE PETERSON, SAYS NO The way this reads, you're saying that Peterson says women should be allowed to vote. Tricky things, those double negatives.

Well darn, I was hoping to trap you with your answer.

So is your icon because you like the policies or party, or the man himself, or did you choose it because you were trying to be ironic?

Neither, thank you. The age of the law is immaterial. Remember, many places still had segregated schools 100 years ago. And I think it's logical that campaign donations 100 years ago led to corruption. But it's 2012 and there is much greater transparency when it comes to donations. And there are more journalists out there able to expose corruption. But if one agrees with my argument that money = speech, you'd have to strike down Montana's law eliminating corporate donations, because it's a restriction of free speech.

The right to spend money in the political realm is a free speech issue. If you start limiting how much can be spent in the political process, you start limiting free speech. I don't think I should be limited to $30,000 or so in a presidential campaign. I should be able to spent $3 million or more if I have it. Why should a government tell me how much I can spend to help someone who I think will represent me well in the White House, or at any other political level? What if your government disallowed you from spending more than $30,000 on a news outlet, like a newspaper or TV or radio st

So...do you have a link to this actual story, or only to the website of the entity that published it?

If I had a nickle for every time you've said "biased hit job" in the last month I'd be able to quit my job.

You whine and whine about how everyone around you is OK with the "status quo," and yet you say you don't vote because your vote "doesn't count." And you call your fellow Georgians stupid, yet when offered an opportunity to educate yourself on the candidates, you turn it down. Apparently YOU think the Fs in your quoted "study" mean "Fine" if you're not willing to become educated on the issues and vote accordingly. Look at the House District 19 race. Yes, there are three Republicans in the race, but if they were all the same, then the two challengers would've left things be and not enter

From http://www.mpetersesq.com/foreclosure-defense.php on this law: Yes. A deficiency judgment may be obtained when a property in foreclosure is sold at a public sale for less than the loan amount which the underlying mortgage secures. This means that the borrower still owes the lender for the difference between what the property sold for at auction and the amount of the original loan. New Jersey however has a “Fair Market Credit” doctrine set forth under N.J.S.A 2A:50-3 which is a safeguard against low or minimal bids which may give rise to a windfall in the event of a deficiency

I seriously doubt that any state would require banks to "waive off" any difference in the home's value and the amount of money borrowed to buy the home. And no bank being operated by anyone in their right mind would operate under such an agreement. If they did, I'd be sure to not give any of my money to them. Now if you have a credible source that says otherwise, by all means, you can share that. But how logical is what you're proposing? Why would any government say you only owe what the house is worth at the time, and not the entire outstanding amount of the loan? By that logic, no on

Don't wait until July 4, Postman! There's a Chamber breakfast tomorrow morning featuring the school board candidates, and a candidate forum at the Dallas Theater tomorrow night! If you're so interested in the state, you should at least go to one of those. So will we see you there, or will you be on here complaining during both of those events?

Try federal law. Most banks participate in interstate commerce, which means they would mostly be governed by federal law. Plus most are insured by FDIC. The "F" in FDIC has nothing to do with the "F" Georgia got on a "study" on "integrity" in government—the "F" stands for Federal. Some state law could come into play, but no state nor federal law would get homeowners off the hook for the total amount of money they borrowed to buy the house. If you think banks owe it to homeowners to pay off their mortgages or to waive off balances, then I'm going to wait for you to open up Postmanmart,