Jump to content
Paulding.com

Nice Green

Members
  • Content Count

    767
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Nice Green

  1. Why was this comment pulled into its own topic? It was a response to the original post, and no other comments critical of their commentary were spun off into their own topics. Furthermore, why was it placed in Welcome and learn about the NEW Paulding.com when the other main topics are in the Cafe?
  2. That's the problem right there—if you're going to present this as news or present yourself as any kind of journalist, you can't make comments or criticism. That's not your job. And while I commend your desire to serve the public by attempting a run for county commission, in doing so you've thrown away any objectivity you had in reporting the issues of the county. Even though your run is finished, your commentary on the commission meeting (which again, you should not be publicly posting as an objective journalist) can be construed, and perhaps they truly are, as "sour grapes."
  3. So not only does TP ignore these questions, he starts a thread to kiss up to Pubby—I guess we'll call that "Exhibit B" to show that he's a kept person and loyal to Pubby and his corporation.
  4. A few questions: 1. Is Pcom a corporation? If so, why does TP support it so much? 2. If the answer to the first question is "yes," then why would TP gladly give his money to a corporation? Or does he get a pro bono membership for driving up Pcom's numbers? 3. Why is TP so loyal to Pubby? Why is he OK with being a kept person for him, or one of his sheep? 4. How does Pubby thank TP for being such a good little sheep?
  5. It's hard to find something to disagree with you on here. I bolded a portion of your statement, you'll notice, and that's because I believe such a decision was obvious. Spending money is a form of expression—you shouldn't be limited on how much you spend on clothes or which brands you buy. You shouldn't be limited to how many movies you consume or what genre of film, nor should your music choices be limited. And the same goes with political contributions. When you limit how much one can spend on a politician, you're limiting their freedom of speech. The latter may not create a level playin
  6. But I think the increasing gap between rich and poor is due to many of those under that $5.9-million threshold having the ability to growth their wealth during their lifetime and passing said wealth to the next generation. And the extremely rich are very likely to get richer—that's math for you. The more wealth you have, the more you can invest. I don't care to speculate what drives a Gates or a Koch to spend their money the way they see fit. As long as their gains were legal, I don't care how much they've amassed or how they spend it.
  7. I'm glad you think that, but I think you missed my point—wealth creates wealth. Those lucky enough to have been wealthy in the early part of the 20th century would have been able to pass their wealth to their future generations, who in turn can create even more wealth for themselves. That's why the gap is increasing. Said another way, the rich tend to get richer.
  8. I love "Last Week Tonight." Great show. One thing the segment fails to point out is one main reason why the income gap continues to grow—wealth (typically) creates wealth over a lifetime, or several lifetimes. Take the person who takes out student loans for college, graduates, gets a job and eventually pays those loans. They then hopefully get to a better point financially than they were when their career started. They can then leave their relatives some of their wealth, which may help their descendants start at a better point then they did—perhaps not having to take out student loans,
  9. From the article: "When you compare women and men with the same education and experience levels working the same jobs, the pay gap shrinks, but there is still an unexplained gap of 7 to 9 percent, economists estimate..." So the "77 cents on every dollar a man earns for the same job" argument loses a bit of steam with that fact, and the 7-9 percent difference could be attributed to men negotiating better salaries, or men simply being more attractive to employers and worthy of more money. In most families, when a child is sick, it's the mother that's more likely to stay home with him/her
  10. From the same article: "Watters hasn't yet clarified his stance via social media, but the TV commentator did proudly retweet a story about how police kicked him out of a National Organization for Women's Conference on Monday, after allegedly asking a female attendee to feel his bicep." So what is he—a reporter, or a commentator? The titles are not interchangeable. And if he's a commentator, then he's making the comment, not Fox News, as you imply in your opening sentence and title.
  11. No, but you're not a government. And the airport isn't a business so much as it is a semi-public facility.
  12. I'm pretty sure citizens don't get to vote on who runs the company or how they run it. And I'm pretty sure the citizens elect most of the people in government who make the decisions—or elect the people who appoint individuals to other parts of government. So I'm not seeing an apt comparison here.
  13. Can you even stay on the topics you bring up? Facts are facts. Even your charts showing how much money the 1% is making are facts (if their source is credible). You making claims that the 1% is getting richer because of Republicans is an opinion, unless you have facts to back you up. I didn't bring up OJ Simpson. You did, for some reason.
  14. Do you have any evidence to show who has been commenting on the "Democrats living on the plantation."
  15. I'd venture a guess that mrshoward is not a guy. And perhaps I've missed the comments about the "Democrats living on the plantation." Wasn't it your side that recently brought up slavery?
  16. And this is exactly why no one should bother responding to his posts. If he can't face facts, then he's clearly not ready to have a rational debate.
  17. You're talking to a 70-year-old who uses smileys in his responses and can't be bothered to address any argument against the crap he spews. Don't be surprised that he can't follow any sense of decorum.
  18. And Democrats are still among their ranks, but they and their wealth are OK because they're not Republicans. Have I stated your stance on this accurately?
  19. If that's the case, then why are there still rich Democrats? And just how do they make their money that makes it OK versus what Republicans do?
  20. It's great that he tells the truth, but why is he so respectable in your eyes? Isn't he part of the problem? How is his money-making methods and his bank account any better than that of a rich Republican's money and methods? You have no answer to these questions, why is why you're trying to change the subject.
  21. And I guess all the millionaire Democrats somehow make their money trickle up, so it's OK if they're part of the 1%, the 0.1% or the 0.01%, huh?
×
×
  • Create New...