Jump to content
Ihope... does your shallow-minded rant mean we should let the black racists have their black only groups so that they can show how "atrocities against humanity" used to be?
Carlton, congrats for starting the thought process in the right direction!
However, even though your article was just on these specific committee groups, your scope in your next article could also focus on the Commissioners being elected.
Every bullet point in your article could also be applied to the commissioners. I have also witnessed a City Commissioner (Postell) coming in late to a meeting, plopping his hat on the table, and then rudely walking over to get a cup of coffee during another public figure's deliver of information. His racist quota comments have also been heard. County Commissioners Jack Stone and Lamar Hudgins have also been hostile toward the public's views. It is time to hold these reps accountable!
"This group is about working together," Hubbard said. It's about bringing everybody in and having everybody work together."
Just one simple question, but I am sure it will be hard for someone to honestly answer, why is it called "The Georgia Conference of Black Mayors"???????
Straightface - this type of "shaking up" is needed for both the city and county. From what I have seen and heard, it seems Taylor has the right ideas and approach. However, he seems to be up against a very shallow-minded and inept Board of Commissioners who keep overriding his suggestions.
Keep it going Mr. Mosley!!!
Sending these disciplinary messages will help change the mindset for those who think they will be able to continue down the path of "that's the way we have always done it".
The next step will be to start strong disciplinary actions for the disruptive and disrespectful students who rob the valuable learning time from the students who really want to learn. This will help change the mindset for the parents and community that we are on the road to recovery from the past poor leadership. It also sets an example to see what actions lead to success.
The issue Jimboob seems to be with where to draw the line with helping the "truly needy", versus continually giving to those who only seem to want a handout. There is no commandment or directive that says help others "without condition", as you have stated.
For example, if you were totally committed to helping and serving the needy, then why do you have a computer to access this site? Should you give up all that you work for to help others (who do not want to work)to have just as much as you? As info, these questions are meant to bring pause for thought and not a direct slam on you. Helping those who are truly on hard times is one thing. Helping those who can help themselves to be self-sufficient is another. Even Christ told the farmers to leave the outer layers of their crops for the poor to COME to harvest. He did not say take these portions to the poor.
Squawker, please do a little research on your thought process because it is obvious your thinking is flawed. For many years there have been over a hundred government programs designated to help the poor. Billions have been spent to help the poor, yet we still have more poor today than ever before.
If holding people accountable for their actions is a vertue of Republicans, then maybe you should re-evaluate your desire to hang on to your Democratic voting status. There have been problems with the character of individuals in both parties. However, we should consider the principles of what we desire for our nation and vote accordingly. For me, trying to take money from hard working people just to give to someone else who is not willing to make attempts to improve themselves is wasted resources and energy.
Understood. Just trying to show the falicy of the arguments EJ was using to describe if Congress' vote coincides with some other outside group, then they must be caving to their pressure, rather than using common sense logic.
EJ, and the recent C Tucker opinion, have extremely flawed reasoning abilities that renders their opinions to be non-credible. I will not use the typical democrated response of "the vote has been taken, so get over it". We all have the right to express an opinion. What matters is how credible the facts are when making the opinionated statements. For EJ to say "Advocates of sane gun regulations..." indicates to vote against the proposed new regulations would be insane. What about considering they were being sane enough to recognize the new regulations would solve little in protecting innocent children from being slaughtered by those who have no respect for human life and would find other methods or killing tools to do harm without going through a background check?
EJ has also made references that Congress caved to the NRA's demands, which indicates Congress did not make their own decisions based on criteria that would not be in the best interest of all citizens. So if the democrats make healthcare decisions based on what may also be advocated by the Insurance Companies, then should we also assume that Congress caved to this lobbying group? THINK about it.
Part of the past issues with this base of commissioners have been making financial decisions without FACTS. While I am not in favor of having a separate Fire Department, knowing the facts and expenses should provide the commissioners with the appropriate information to make some corresponding decisions with other facets of the budgeting process, like combining the DoCo Police with the Sheriff's division.
Separating the Fire Dept. goes against any common sense solution which points toward combining resources and eliminating duplication of services to reduce expenses.
The real solutions for reducing the overall expenses would be to combine the police services, and eliminate the entire Unincorporated District by changing the inter-agency agreements between the City and the County for Fire services. These services and resources are already shared across city and county lines. However, the costs are unfairly allocated to the County's Unincorporated district.
Last login: Sunday, May 19, 2013