Nice Green

Awesome. So all CEOs are rich and white, and apparently, racist. Did I get that right, TP? What about Republican? Surely they're all Republican? Maybe instead of deflecting my question with blanket statements and accusations of greed and racism, you can answer my question: What does your "study" on "integrity" in government have to do with bank executives? Again, government does not equal private entities, which is what banks are.

By that reasoning, the dealership should lower my car payment immediately after I drive it off the lot, because it immediately begins to lose value. And hey, I bought a 42-inch TV from Target three years ago for $700, and now you can get a 42-inch TV for less than $500. I'm going to walk into Target tomorrow and demand the difference back IN FULL. --- See how ridiculous those arguments are? And you expect the same things from banks—you expect them to lower payments and interest rates. They have to make money, you know. And despite your well-documented wealth envy, they employ worke

What does your "study" on "integrity" in government have to do with bank executives? Government =/= private entities. What's next? Are you going to start blaming Georgia's high temperatures on the lack of government integrity your precious "study" shows?

I'm still waiting to see the arrest report. If Paulette's as bad as people say she is, then someone would have a copy of it they'd be sharing during the election cycle.

There is no comparing rape, or bystanders watching a rape occur, to public corruption, or in this case, the same "study" on "integrity" being cited by the same person over and over again. The extreme example given by the OP was merely designed to get a rise out of people, but it's truly in poor taste. Yes, public corruption is bad, but a "study" that shows which states have strong laws and which laws don't has nothing to do with how much integrity or how much dishonesty a state's government has.

Maybe I wasn't here. Maybe I wasn't paying attention. It doesn't matter. I just think that if you're going to call someone a criminal, you show the evidence to back that statement up.

But you're fine with having someone with the screen name of "Chainsaw," and identifying them as such in your reporting, accuse a candidate of malfeasance in another race? So it's OK for someone who is basically anonymous to make claims against one candidate, and then allow those claims to be printed unchecked, but when another set of claims against another opponent is supported by that target's opponent, then you question their motives and their evidence? And you expect us to trust the anonymous source in the first case, and not the more public source in the other?

Couldn't agree more! Seconded!

And I'm sure you've got an arrest report or police blotter to back up your statement?

A few thoughts: One could very well be a server for 30 years and end up making good money at the end of it all. Just because you start your career at Waffle House doesn't mean you can't clean yourself up at the end of your late-night shift and head over to Denny's to apply for a server job there, then use that job to springboard to Cracker Barrel, and so on (not to necessarily say that Waffle House < Denny's < Cracker Barrel, but just using this scenario as an example). Keep doing that, and you could very well end up at a restaurant where 15% of the check is decent money, and where t

Wow, a PR move by Walmart. Stop the presses! Just because Walmart pulled out doesn't necessarily mean "stand your ground" is a bad law, but the move likely means Walmart thinks its supporters think it's a bad law, so they're distancing themselves from it. We haven't resolved the Zimmerman case, we haven't determined if Zimmerman's actions were within the legal protection with the law. I'd like to see a resolution in this test of the law before we start making a big deal of companies not supporting the organization that pushed for it, but that's just me.

What?!? Zoo posted a story on an economic topic that didn't show how great the economy was under Barack Obama? Did I log onto bizarropaulding.com?!?

I'm glad someone else noticed the irony.

If you're going to continue to cite this "study" ad nauseum, can you at least quote more than one individual part of it. We get it—Georgia got a 0 on one part of a random group's study, and you've tried to hit us over the head with this one statistic. Now move on. You complain that people don't like you and would call you names that can't be printed on here in response to receiving criticism on these constant threads on this same one topic, and yet you don't have the U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D-I-N-G to comprehend why people are criticizing you. This is a discussion board, not a rambling b

I don't disagree with you. Most of the furlough days are Fridays before holidays, so it extends the holiday weekend for employees, but I'm not sure why they didn't do it with Memorial Day. The furlough days have been posted throughout the commissioners' building since last summer, and they're on the county's website. I"m not sure how they can better advertise them. It remains to be seen if there will be furloughs this next fiscal year. Those who don't want to see furloughs, or maybe have them scheduled for different days (Perhaps non-holiday Mondays?) should go to the Board of Commissi

Mid-level jobs doesn't necessarily mean middle class. Take sales—are we talking vanilla retail sales, or are we talking car salesmen? And I'm no economist, but I'd think you would have to always have a middle class. The rich could get richer and the poor could get poorer, but you're always going to have people that earn at or near the average.

Oh, sorry TP, forgive me for expecting you to have a rational discussion with me. OK, so where does the CPI's integrity report implicate him as bringing down the state's integrity? You're good at posting links, so I know that once you find it (or you probably know exactly where it is anyway, right?), you'll be able to put a link in the thread to it. If you were exercising any kind of education you might have, I wouldn't be typing this response to you right now.

Your original posts in this thread have nothing to do with integrity. You posted this story like Rogers had done something had done wrong, and said, "Is a man who takes money from gamblers on a 900 pay-per-call number a good Senate Majority Leader?" I actually addressed the topic you began, and then you turn around and turn it into another "integrity study" thread. In other threads on the topic, you fail to address my questions to you, such as the time period of this study, if it actually looked at current lawmakers, or when such laws on the books were actually passed and who passed them.

I was there!

Paranoid much? Or have you just run out of medication?

I saw the story, and it's a non-story, because if he was indeed merely an actor, then big deal, he was an actor. If he was in this commercial because he supports gambling, then it's still a non-issue. Gambling is legal in certain places, and even if it's not in others, it should be. And I believe you can be a Christian and still support gambling or gamble yourself. And churches enable others to gamble all the time. Your church raffling off a Big Green Egg? That may as well be a lottery. What about a cake walk? That's practically roulette right there. Just because the money's going for

Wow, what a non-story.

I don't truly know how people felt in 1864, and frankly, I don't care. If you care so much (and you must since your Sherman quote tends to end up in most of your threads), then why not hold a seance and ask Sherman and those long dead Georgians yourself?

If TP ever started a business, and then incorporated, would he then think his own business was evil?

"But but but Georgia is dead last! Would you allow your child to come home with an F on their report card?"