@Libralady: Let me ask a question, with no snarkiness, just asking for facts: Can you name just one initiative, bill, or policy where Obama has included anything that the GOP has proposed? I'm serious now. Can you think of one? I'm not talking about making speeches and such. Can you honestly think of one instance in which he has included GOP proposals in anything that has become policy or law? I can't.
As far as "not coming to grips", the same can be same of the Democrats with regards to the Bush-Gore defeat. The treatment of GWB by the Democrats was just as obstructive and harsh, if not more so, than the treatment of Obama by the Republicans. GWB was called everything but a child of God, and everyone has danced around Obama for fear of being labeled racist. (I find that last fact to be funny, since most people today think "racism" is disagreeing with anything Obama says. I grew up in the South during the 1950's and the Jim Crow era. THAT was racism.)
Yesterday's remark by Obama that the "Republicans need to stop hating" is proof of what I say. "Disagreement" and "disapproval" is not "hate", yet the President uses highly emotionally charged words like "hate" to deepen the divide between the left and right. If he were truly interested in compromise, he would choose his words more carefully. Obama was an activist. Activists do not solve problems, they exacerbate them. A president is supposed to be a leader, bringing both sides to the middle in order to accomplish goals that give each side something of what they want, not shutting out people who disagree with your point of view. If you look at the past 6 years carefully, without emotion, you will see that I am correct.
Leadership starts at the top. The president sets the tone for his administration, and his staff and others follow his lead. Think about the tone of this administration. They have been less than honest on several occasions, and outright lied on others. It has been a case of "not my fault", "I didn't know", stammering, stalling and blustering. One "red line" after another. Regardless of your political philosophy, does this sound like leadership to you? And....none of what I just listed has anything to do with opposition from the Republicans.posted @ Thursday, July 31, 2014 - 08:39
[quote][b]Libralady[/b] - @swimdawg68:
The republican party has totally lost my support because they have refused to cooperate with President Obama from day one. That has been their ONLY objective and they have done the country a horrible disservice and made sure nothing was accomplished. I am not a real "left wing democrat" but I surely have become anti-conservative the past few years.
As for the fall elections, don't count your chickens too soon….you may be surprised. That is my consolation.
Please explain how Obama has made any effort to cooperate with the Republicans. Cooperation is a two-sided process. You don't encourage cooperation by making "in your face" statements and remarks, and by denigrating those who don't agree with you. Obama has just as much fault in this gridlock as does anyone else. Shoving Obamacare through Congress by using a techicality is a very specific example. Was he afraid of open debate on the law? Do you think that if it had come up for debate, we might have had a law that would have been easier to implement? Do you think by changing the rules almost daily after the law was passed, that Obama signaled he wanted "cooperation"? In the eyes of this administration, "cooperation" means "capitulation", and anyone who disagrees with any policy of this president is branded a racist. Obama and his administration have done the country just as much of a disservice as have the Republicans, and it's high time that you and others on the left quit thinking that his "my way or the highway" approach is anything but just that.
One more thing: just exactly how do you equate someone's IQ with their voting choice? Why is it that the left always has to make the claim that someone who does not agree with them or has a different opinion has a lower IQ? Just explain what criteria you use to determine the IQ of a person who would vote for a candidate with whom you disagree. I've had it with this snotty attitude of the left. Someone may disagree with you, and vote for a candidate you find distasteful, but that by no means that they are any less intelligent than you. That bias shows a lack of intelligence by those who share it.posted @ Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - 12:10
I've said this before:
Have a team meeting before practice ever begins. Do it on the first day back at school. Announce to everyone present that if any player gets anything more than a speeding ticket, they will be out of the program and on a bus back home that afternoon. No scholarship, no school, no nothing.
You'll have to do about one a year to show you mean business.
There are people who will appreciate the opportunities that come from a full scholarship and the ability to play for a top SEC team, who will also know how to behave. If you set the bar high, and stand by your rules, people will rise to the challenge. As long as we recruit people who have athletic ability and nothing else, this behavior will continue.posted @ Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - 11:51
Kasim Reed thinks he has a future in national Democratic politics.
I find it highly hypocritical that the Democrats are so concerned now about immigrant children who make their way here, yet had no problem sending federal agents to seize Elian Gonzales at the point of a gun and returning him to Cuba. Maybe if the countries of origin of this latest group of children were Communist, we'd send them back.
The main question to answer is "why are these children here"? Are they victims of human trafficking, are they fleeing possible death in their own countries, or did their parents just pack them up and send them here, hoping to sneak across the borders and join them later? Why are they here?
If there is not some compelling humanitarian reason to give these children safe harbor, such as fearing for their safety in their homeland or that they were sent here to be used in the sex trade industry, they should be reunited with their parents. Who sends their children hundreds of miles away, unaccompanied? If the parents were with the children, and wanted a better life, I could understand that, but to send minors away from home with absolutely no idea where they will end up is insane.
This is just one more glaring reason to put troops on the border, and seal it now. We can deal with those who are here illegally once we seal the borders. The Democrats see illegals as possible voters. The Republicans want cheap labor.
We need to (1) seal the borders, and (2) stop giving handouts to our own citizens who are able to work. We didn't have an illegal immigration problem on this scale until we made it too easy for our own citizens to get a check. Our own citizens used to do the work that the immigrants now do, until we made it more profitable to hangout on street corners and have babies for a living.posted @ Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - 08:52
@maxcat07: Nah....that's not bad judgment. That's just being crooked.posted @ Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 17:19
It's hard to believe that as long as this type of scam has been out there, there is anyone still so naive as to fall for it.posted @ Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 12:16
Grimes made reference to Doug Barnard and Robert G. Stephens, Jr., as blue-dog Democrats. Let's not walk down memory lane too far, without remembering that both men were considered to be relatively wealthy as opposed to a blue-collar worker. Barnard was a banker, and Stephens was a lawyer. Neither of these men were po' folk.
The Dems like to talk about the Republicans, describing them as wealthy, entitled robber barons bent on cheating the middle class out of their earnings. How many of the top Democrats are poor? (Hillary doesn't count. Her whining about being "flat broke" on a $16 million dollar income falls on deaf ears.) The Clintons, Obamas, Bidens, Rangels, Pelosis and Reids aren't poor people, championing the plight of their fellow poverty-stricken neighbors. Nancy Pelosi's husband has benefited from her position, as has Harry Reid's family. Chelsea Clinton got a made-up job at a TV network for $600K per year, and Goldman Sachs has paid the Clintons something like $3 million for speaking fees and "donations" (hack, cough) to the Clinton Global Fund and their foundation, which they control. So, let's not pretend that one party is made up of impoverished people yearning for their piece of the pie, because it ain't so.
Millard wants you to believe that if we elected Democrats to Congress, that we'd have this level of cooperation and benign benevolence that was present during the 1930's, 40's and 50's, when these kindly old rich men saw to it that Billy Bob got a pair of shoes to wear.
As I said previously, leadership starts at the top. If you want to bring about compromise with the opposition, you bring your people to the table first. You don't go on perpetual campaign mode, poking your finger in the eyes of the people you need for those compromises. That isn't leadership. That's being an activist, and activists don't solve problems.posted @ Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 11:41
Paul Broun's and Hice's election are the reaction and result of the too far-left policies of the Democratic party over the last several years. Millard Grimes remembers when the "blue-dog Democrats" as he calls them, worked for the good of the people they served. Both Robert Stephens and Doug Bernard, if they were in office today, would represent the views of a more conservative electorate.
Paul Broun and Hice are in office because the Democratic party was hijacked by the aging counter-culture that led the anti-American movement of the late 1960's. The election of Bill Clinton, and Hillary's subsequent attempt to force national healthcare on the nation drove many long time Democrats away from the fold. Zell Miller said it best: "I didn't leave the party, it left me." That shift to the hard left under Clinton, his subsequent sorry behavior, and his radical, power-hungry wife created candidates like Hice and Broun, and Obama's performance and policies have made that division even wider.
Statewide, the Democrats ceased to represent average Georgians, and marginalized itself as the party of black metro Atlanta. They were the party that elected Cynthia McKinney time and time again, and Hank Johnson, who thought too many troops would make Guam tip over. You don't see Grimes decrying the looney fringes of the Democratic party.
Hice is an evangelical preacher. It is natural for him to think that he should force-feed his religion to those who do not subscribe to it. However vocal he may be, his influence in that department will be minimal. What we need are LEADERS instead of perpetual candidates, who will work for programs that strengthen the country from without and within.....and that leadership starts at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As long as we have a president who puts partisan politics and nose-thumbing ahead of cooperation with the party that represents the other 50% of the electorate, nothing will change. LEADERSHIP starts at the top. Instead of wringing his hands at the symptom of the problem, Grimes should be exhorting the leader of HIS party to start the process of cooperation.posted @ Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 10:40
[quote][b]cyou299[/b] - please do. I mean, if it feels right, do it. Skip thought, reference, logic. Just go ahead. [/quote]
When (not if) we elect a Republican president, and if he chooses to ignore the Constitution and rule of law as Obama has done, and decides to reverse the gains made on issues favored by liberals, will you sit idly by, do and say nothing?
Were you quiet when Richard Nixon engaged in a cover up of huge proportions, and used the IRS to target his political enemies? Was that behavior acceptable?
If we allow one party to violate the Constitution, then we set a precedent for all parties to do the same. You seem to think that if those you support are doing so, that makes things quite all right. Will you be so forgiving when someone you don't support does the same thing?posted @ Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 10:05
We need to seal the borders, and do it now. Let's care for these children, give them health exams and vaccinations, and see if it's possible to return them to their mothers and fathers. IF they are here to escape human trafficking, that's one thing, but allowing the wholesale immigration of unaccompanied minors is another. We cannot take on and raise the whole world. While the focus is on these children, we are not paying attention to the flood of adults coming across the border. No other nation on this planet will allow this kind of invasion. This is an insult and an affront to those who have waited, sometimes for years, to come to this country legally.
Allowing and condoning illegal immigration is another failure of the current administration, and the Democratic party specifically. At what point in time do we recognize that this president and his administration are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, with no direction, flailing aimlessly at everything that comes their way, and accomplishing nothing. There is NO direction, NO policy, no nothing coming out of Washington. We reel and react with great emotion but no effectiveness at every news article. Obama makes a speech, says he's mad, and goes to another fundraiser. Did we elect a leader, or someone whose main job is to raise funds for fellow party members??
Mitt Romney and John McCain would have done much better at being a leader. Maybe next time, Generation X will vote with their brains instead of with political correctness.posted @ Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 09:58
@Logical: I reported you for using the same kind of language that got crazy8golfer banned. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
If you DIDN'T do well in the eighties, you weren't trying. As far as the stock market goes, if you were invested in stocks for the long run, even with the ups and downs and the most recent downturn, you made money. If you were playing the slot machine, then you lost. Even with a 22% drop IN ONE AFTERNOON, you didn't lose any money unless you sold the stock, or the company goes out of business or declares bankruptcy (see General Motors). Cardinal rule of business: It's not a loss until you make it one. Municipal bonds are a better bet, unless you bought bonds sold by the City of Detroit.
All economics are "trickle down". I build a house and pay the builder. He pays the subs, who pay their suppliers. All commerce is "trickle down". The Democrats' Keynesian economics, where you give everyone a little tad of something, is what isn't working. Where are all those jobs Obama was supposed to have "saved or created"? We aren't even creating enough jobs to allow for the growth of the population.
The truth is that all presidents have had recessions. Some have been worse than others. Markets overheat, people think they can make money without doing anything, the market reaches a peak and drops. The New Deal programs helped put people back to work during the Great Depression, but even Roosevelt wasn't immune. He had a recession during 1937-38, and the Depression really didn't end until the start of WWII.
The current recession was the direct result of the government's attempt to use the market to influence social programs without regard to standard business practices and accountability. In an effort to act like Santa Claus, and "level the playing field", the subprime loan market was created, Banking regulations were eased to allow big banks to gobble up smaller ones, and the derivative markets were created so that the big banks, who donate heavily to both parties, would not have to hold bad mortgages on their books. None of that was the case prior to the enactment and enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, which was passed by Carter. Before that, you had either 20% down for a conventional mortgage (8% was the norm) or you went FHA or VA, which was a 3 1/2 % down payment. The fact is that there are people who are not financially stable enough, or disciplined enough to be homeowners. Neither of my grandparents ever owned a home. They rented all of their lives, and were none the worse off because of it.
Ask someone in the financial services industry about Dodd-Frank, and see what response you get. Instead of consumer protection, they should do consumer education if they want to end deceptive practices. Obviously, the left does not think that the poor in this country can make any improvement in their present condition, because all their efforts are aimed at containing, subsidizing and "protecting" the poor instead of educating them so that these people can improve their lot in life.
We put a man on the moon in less than a decade, yet fifty years after we supposedly declared "war on poverty", we have more poor people than we ever did, and those who were poor then are poor now. Billions down the drain, and our so-called poor are no better off financially than before. They're just broke with more stuff, and we're still shelling out the billions.
You're right...I can't rewrite history, but history, if you look at it factually and without your overly emotional view, will show that the present-day Democratic party and their hand-out policies have done more to destroy the economy and the work ethic of an entire segment of our society, than the policies of the Republican party.
The ghetto culture and mentality are the result of the policies of the Democrats. The Democrats got us into every war we've been in since
WWII, except Iraq-Afghanistan, and they voted with Bush to do that. This financial crash was exacerbated by the welfare policies of the Democrats. The Clinton administration besmirched the dignity of the office of the President more than did Nixon. The Obama administration has been the most dishonest SINCE Nixon. Neither party is perfect, but the present day Democratic party was taken over by the aging counter-culture, anti-American types from the 1960's, and their goal is a socialist state. It isn't the party of Roosevelt any more. Vote for whom you choose, but I'm voting for people who won't tell me that "sometime, I've made enough money" and that they need to "spread the wealth".
1. I'd say the Republicans are against a flawed law which was passed against the will of the majority of the country by using a rarely-used parliamentary procedure instead of open debate. (You DO remember that Obama said he would put every newly-proposed law up on a website, for the public reading and commenting, for a certain number of days, right? THAT train didn't get far out of the station, did it?)
2. If you did away with Obamacare, the Hobby Lobby question would not have arisen, would it? (I do agree that religious fundamentalism should be kept out of politics. I'm sure you will remind the Muslims of that.) Also, specify WHERE women do not have equal standing in the Republican party.
3. Define "remarkably poor". If you are speaking of the Democrats' blind obedience to the flawed policies of climate change, thank goodness someone isn't buying all that garbage. You should be more concerned with the environmental records of China and India, and less about penalizing capitalism for the benefit of Marxist goals worldwide.
4. Wrong side of immigration? So, you support having open borders with no idea of who's coming across, and where they are going? Name one other nation on this globe that allows thousands of people to cross their borders unchecked and without proper documentation. We'll be waiting on your response.
5. You didn't seem to have a problem when armed Black Panthers stood outside polling places in an obvious attempt to influence voters. Also, I have to show my ID to board a plane or even purchase a six pack of beer. It's too much to ask to require that you show yours to perform the most important function a citizen can do? Really? Has anyone stopped people from getting state ID cards? There is a mechanism to register voters when you obtain a driver's license, or when you apply for public benefits. Are you saying it's okay to have to produce an ID to sign up for food stamps and/or social security, but not to vote?
6. Not all Republicans are fundamentalists. I'm not. I don't vote for fundamentalist candidates. I also don't vote for Marxist or Leninist candidates, which leaves out most Democrats. Since you vote Democratic, does that mean you support womanizers and serial sexual offenders, like Bill Clinton? Does that mean you support serial liars, like Hillary and Obama? You know that the three of them wouldn't know the truth if it reached up and bit them in the butt. I've been very vocal about my opposition to fundamentalists in politics. You've been quite silent about the lack of ability to be truthful and the lack of morals from almost 100% of the recent Democratic candidates, nominees, elected and appointed officials. What does that say about you?
7. Constant obstructionism: thank goodness someone has stood up and told this president "no". We're in bad enough shape now. Lord only knows how bad it would be if no one stood up and opposed the foolish policies of this administration.
As always, your response is top-heavy with emotion, short on logic and fact, and completely useless.posted @ Monday, July 28, 2014 - 17:32
@Logical: "if you want jobs and a healthy economy, vote Democrat"?????
The nation voted Democrat twice, in 2008 and 2012. Where are the jobs? Where is the healthy economy? Does the name Jimmy Carter ring a bell? Where were the jobs? Where was the healthy economy?
Bill Clinton was too preoccupied in his first term trying to pacify his wife and pass national health care, so he left the Reagan-Bush economic model basically intact. After that, he had a Republican-dominated Congress that kept him from passing most of his leftist agenda. That's the only reason we had a decent economy in the 90's, and we still had the dot.com recession at the end of his term.
LBJ?? Where was his "healthy economy" and where were his jobs? Remember 1967-68? I'll give you the recession that started with the false "oil shortage" of 1973, and the inflation that followed, but Carter and his advisors' mealy-mouthed approach made it far worse. I don't know if you were an adult paying your own bills during the Carter years, but I was, and it was horrible. I'll also concede that the savings and loan debacle during the last two years of Reagan's term was on a Republican watch, but it was far less costly to the economy than the Carter years.
Allowing savings and loan institutions to abandon their original purpose, become depository banks, and then allow them to be gobbled up by bigger institutions sounds vaguely familiar to the bad credit/subprime loan crisis that fueled the latest crash, doesn't it? Do you see anyone in the current administration trying to regulate the big banks, and maybe break them up into smaller units so that if one fails, it doesn't take the country with it? Check how much the Obama administration has received from those big banks they love to hate, and check to see if there has been any massive push to regulate what they do. You won't find anything.
Who has been the major beneficiary of the Fed policy of buying up bad debt to the tune of $80 billion per month? That's the only reason the stock market is at 17,000, and most of the financial wizards I read say that number is artificially high, and will likely drop at any time.
Markets always correct themselves. Fiscal policy, domestic policy and foreign policy all affect market performance. In many cases, recessions that occurred on the watches of Republican presidents can be attributed to the policies of the Democrats that preceded them, and that is very true of this last recession. F
rom my own experience, I suffered through Carter, did well during the Reagan years all the way up until the Democrats took back the House and Senate in 2006. The fact that we didn't fall in to a deep recession immediately following 9/11 is a credit to the Republicans. Your premise is flawed, nfluenced by your personal animosity toward a political party you don't like, and like most left-leaning people, heavily influenced by emotion and very short on facts.
The "rest of the world is eating our lunch" because the Obama admininstration has done their very best to erode American influence and integrity around the world. Hillary won't do any better. Today's Democrats don't have the courage, morals or backbone to do any better. Try nominating and electing someone who isn't a stoner, who didn't throw their medals over the White House fence, or boastfully claim they invented the internet. Better yet, start with someone who knows what the truth is, and how to tell it.posted @ Monday, July 28, 2014 - 14:14
How many rockets did Hamas fire into Israel, before the Israelis had enough of that mess and started firing back? Hamas talks peace, but then continues to attack Israel, and still to this day states in its charter that its goal is to annihiliate Israel.
Now, the media is all "boo hoo, poor Palestinians" because they're getting their butt kicked from here to Sunday. Israel does not routinely attack the Palestinians out of the blue with no provocation. If you want "peace" in the Middle East, Hamas and the other radical Palestinian groups need to recognize Israel's right to exist, and quit attacking Israeli citizens and territory.posted @ Monday, July 28, 2014 - 12:34
Bad judgment, my royal red behind. He's only sorry because he got caught.
Nobody rises to that high of an office by using "bad judgment". This man (and his wife) knew exactly what they were doing. There is no "bad judgment" here, just bad character. I don't care which political party they represent. Both should get the maximum penalty the law allows, to set an example for those who may have their hands out now, and in the future.
One more thing: Charges should also be brought against those who GAVE the "loans and gifts"...(cough....haaack), because they are also guilty of facilitating corruption and bribery. Nobody gives gifts like this out of the goodness of their hearts....they expect something in return. Go after the "givers", and send a message for that as well. We won't see it, but everyone concerned here should have to do some hard time, and not a short stint in Club Fed.posted @ Monday, July 28, 2014 - 12:14
@cyou299: you mean, capitulate to the President's agenda, and pass his Marxist policies? No, thanks. I, for one, am glad that there are men and women who have the gumption and courage to stand up against a man who is actually trying to destroy America from the inside.
Nikita Kruschev was right, when he said "we will take you over without firing a shot". The Communists understood that they could not foment a revolution among the middle class in America because it was too strong and financially secure, so they set about trying to defeat America from within, by doing so legislatively. Communism didn't die with the fall of the Berlin Wall, it moved into the radical element of American society, when the anti-American counter-culture of the 1960's took over the Democratic party with the election of Bill Clinton, and it morphed into the current "climate change" group, which has hijacked science in the name of income redistribution.
There can be no other excuse for the type of people who now hold sway over the Democrats. Over the last 25 years, your party has nominated weak, spineless, morally challenged men who (if they can keep their pants up) believe that the end justifies the means. There is no debate on the issues, just smarmy remarks, character assassination of those who disagree, and, of course, the ever-present claim of "racism", from people who can't even define the word. People who grew up under Jim Crow laws understand what racism really is, and it isn't disagreeing with a black person over policy and/or performance.
Do I think Congress should challenge the President over the use of executive orders to re-write, change and ignore existing statute? Absolutely.....and you should too. If Obama gets away with this, and goes unchallenged, I don't want to hear one peep out of you Dems, when the tables are turned and a Republican does the exact same thing. Not one, single sollitary peep.posted @ Saturday, July 26, 2014 - 12:47
I think we need some simple, basic regulations.......
1. If you borrow money, you have to pay it back. This includes student loans, underwater mortgages, and credit cards. When you drive your car off the lot, you're underwater. Does this mean you think the government should come and bail you out?
2. If you're too stupid to read and understand a contract, and you don't bother to bring someone with you who can do so, you have to suck it up, and pay the price for your stupidity.
3. If you are dumb enough to let someone else do your thinking for you, and you let yourself get suckered into a bad deal, there will be no whining. (I can't tell you how many times I have someone come, wanting to buy a car, with the lousiest credit on the planet. My comment is always "you need to shop for a loan first, not a car".)
In our efforts to "protect the consumer", we have eliminated the principle of personal responsibility. Every time someone sues some company and wins, we get another form for people to sign. Nobody reads anything. I have to actually slow people down to tell them what they're buying. I actually had to tell one guy to "SIT" so I could explain the contract, because he was so ADD he wouldn't even sit down long enough for me to go over the figures. Of course, this vehicle came back as a repossession a few months later.
To start with, schools blow hot air up the rear ends of young people by telling them that if they occupy a desk for a prescribed period of time, they will be granted a six-figure job with a company car. That's the only way the educational bureaucracy can sell their exhorbitant tuition which funds their bloated administrative payroll. If you are going into a specific discipline, graduating frorm XYZ University with a prestigious degree might help you, but if you're going to work out in the world in a regular job, spending all that money to go to a big-name school is a waste. Nobody cares.
We don't teach critical thinking and problem-solving in schools any more. Parents do not teach responsibility any more. Instead of "consumer protection", we'd be better off if we emphasized "consumer education". There are a few simple truths that never vary:
1. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
2. Money doesn't fall out of the sky, and nobody makes you pay them money for something that is supposed to be "free".
3. Any communication from Nigeria is a scam. Nobody lives there. It's a fake country.
4. Nobody is as careful with your money as you are.
5. When someone says "it's not about the money", it IS about the money.
6. If you can't count change in your head, you don't need a job in retail.
7. If a man, over the age of 30 to 35, is in the job market without a valid reason, such as a layoff, or company closing, one of three things is wrong: he is a substance abuser, he has sticky fingers, or he can't get along with Jesus Christ. (Does not apply to women, as they leave and re-enter the workforce for different reasons.)
8. There really is one born every minute.
Seal.....the.....borders.....first. We need to put troops on the border and lock it down before anything else is done. Once we stop the invasion of people, then let's sort out who has a valid reason to stay and who doesn't.posted @ Saturday, July 26, 2014 - 11:15
I can see that this law would be hard to enforce. How long is the allowable time to stay in the left lane, before moving over? I wouldn't want to take $100 of a person's hard-earned money based on that flimsy of a judgment call.
I routinely stay in the left hand lane on 316 at night. I find that most people who abandon cars or have car trouble are always on the right shoulder, and most deer come from the right hand side of the road. Being in the left lane gives me a few more seconds of reaction time.
As far as ticketing distracted drivers......you'll need to ban people from carrying kids in their cars, because anyone with kids in the car is knows what total distraction really is.posted @ Saturday, July 26, 2014 - 10:59
[quote][b]Used2baFreeCountry[/b] - Uh, oh, they might ban me for saying "bullcrap."
They have been banning one conservative after another from this website.
maybe we should say "bovine feces"....posted @ Friday, July 25, 2014 - 16:11
@DanMatthews: if there was a possibility of solving this crime and prosecuting those responsible, I would agree. Those who know or knew who was responsible aren't talking, and most of them are dead. I'd be willing to bet that ALL the perpetrators are dead. What other purpose is there for a "re-enactment" other than to keep discord and racial strife alive for the purpose of providing a publicity vehicle for Tyrone Brooks?
@Logical made a good comment. What are these same people doing to encourage young blacks to live a cleaner and more productive life? Are they encouraging them to go to school and get an education or a skill? Are they encouraging them to make good decisions in their personal lives, as opposed to throwing them away on drugs?
The people who died that day, and their families would be better served and honored if those involved in this re-enactment would spend more time trying to change the behaviors that keep so many in poverty. If they had been doing that for the last ten years, what might they have accomplished? As it is, what have they accomplished so far, except garner publicity for Tyrone Brooks?posted @ Friday, July 25, 2014 - 16:07
@Logical: That was a very logical, well-reasoned response, and I agree with everything you said.posted @ Friday, July 25, 2014 - 16:01
"If we've got to stop working and shut down (restaurants) to get it, that's what we're going to do," she said.
Reality check here......if you work in a job that requires little to no skill level, you are easily replaceable with one of the millions of people out there who WILL work for the wages offered.....think IMMIGRANTS and TEENAGERS.
If you have been in a job paying minimum wage for a year or longer, and you haven't improved your situation, the problem isn't with the job, it's with YOU. Every job has some level of advancement. Even ditch diggers have a foreman. If you don't have the skill set or the ambition to move out of minimum wage, you need to look in the mirror to find the problem.
It's YOUR responsibility to find a job that pays a "living wage" that will feed your family, and maybe people should think about popping out kids with no regard of whether or not they can feed them. Where does it become my responsibility to afford you a lifestyle you want, but have not earned?
You don't have much to bargain with, lady. I wouldn't shoot off my mouth unless I had the upper hand.posted @ Friday, July 25, 2014 - 15:47
I have read several articles where people have renovated old shipping containers and made living units out of them. What would be wrong with making a few hundred of these units available, and trucking them where they are needed? We spend gazillions of dollars on foreign aid to countries that hate us. Why not spend that money here, and help people transition to permanent housing?
By the way.....all those trailers purchased by the government right after Katrina?? They were all sold a few years later for pennies on the dollar, and most had never been used.posted @ Friday, July 25, 2014 - 15:39
@OCCountry: you are correct about Athens Gardens. That apartment complex has ruined the two others which border it, and the apartments across the street, as well as the subdivision behind Tuckston, which was a nice, middle working class subdivision until all the rentals started going section 8.
We need to modify our zoning ordinance to state that no additional multi-family units can be built, unless an older complex is torn down and replaced. That's probably not constitutional, but it would help.
The Athens Housing Authority will tell you that the problem is not with their tenants, that they are screened and such. They may be correct, but it's the boyfriends and companions of those residents who cause the problems. Buy three or four used RV's, and equip them to be mobile police substations. Place one in each high-crime apartment complex in the county, and have 24/7/365 police presence on the ground at all times. Those who want to live in a safe neighborhood will be thankful, and those who want to break the law will leave.posted @ Friday, July 25, 2014 - 15:32
Summary: Fun facts: The first-ever Oscar ceremony, held in 1929, ran a brisk 15 minutes. By contrast, the longest was in 2002, clocking in at a monstrous 4 hours and change. As usual, there are things I loved about it and things I didn't. Rather than be snarky or complain, I'll offer a few suggestions on how the organizers might bring the show into the 21st century. Fun facts: The first-ever Oscar ceremony, held in 1929, ran a brisk 15 minutes. By contrast, the longest was in 2002, clocking in at a monstrous 4 hours and change. As usual, there are things I loved about it and things I didn't. Rather than be snarky or complain, I'll offer a few suggestions on how the organizers might bring the show into the 21st century. First, a few thoughts on the winners: read more
Athens-Clarke County police officers responded to Pinewood Estates North on a 911 call concerning a heated domestic dispute. it reportedly was an argument over the lack of heat and food in a family's trailer and a woman was threatening to stab anyone who tried to take away her 7-month-old child. State patrol responded also, from their post nearby on U.S. Highway 29 North. The situation apparently was resolved. An officer reported he was driving the woman and infant to another home in Athens. read more