Comments by imnms017
Page 1 of 4 | Next
Posted on November 15 at 7:19 a.m.
MrBoBo -- I agree with you.
Barrister--if you want a lesson in logic, you really should examine your thoughts. If you want to be able to hurl insults at people because of their thoughts, you probably shouldn't be championing an organization whose purpose is to combat just that.
I get your implication, Barrister, and it is downright insulting. I find the NAACP an overtly racist organization (I can name at least a dozen legal battles that demonstrate that) and I have no associations that would cauze a buzz or reason for embarrassment in the newspaper. One doesn't have to be a member of another racist organization to have a problem with the NAACP.
Are you allowed to spew racism because you're a member of the NAACP, a group that claims to fight against racism while blatantly promoting it? There is a massive double standard.
Posted on October 31 at 3:20 p.m.
Trinity is the most consistent title winner. They are 6-0 in their district. Not sure where you're coming from TRON601.
Posted on October 17 at 6:07 p.m.
Thinkaboutit: Maybe the problem is that you don't know Greg Wisner as well as you think you do. Have you considered that? He's been in law enforcement for decades. He knows the county better than anyone else on the list of candidates (certainly better than Craig Godbold).
It's obvious you have another candidate in mind, but asking for another candidate to drop out to maintain his own dignity? That's a joke, right? He's obviously in the race because he cares about the county, and he thinks he can do a good job as sheriff.
The dignified thing to do would be to campaign for the guy you think will do the best job, not to ask other qualified candidates to drop out so you can be sure they don't draw votes away from your guy.
What. A. Joke.
Posted on October 8 at 7:41 a.m.
Greg's the best candidate. By far. Quiet campaigns are the way to go. Politics should be left out, anyway. You've got my vote!
Posted on August 11 at 10:27 a.m.
Southernwoman, I'm quite sure that you wouldn't know the handouts you receive if they hit you in the face. Each and every person living within the borders of the United States receives "handouts" on a daily basis.
I've heard people complain about "handouts" when their own children fund their educations by receiving PELL grants, subsidized federal student loans, and other federal funding. Those same people likely have family members that receive Medicaid, Medicare, and other government benefits.
It's ludicrous that people who drive on state and federally funded highways, patrolled by state and federally funded law enforcement officers would even claim to receive no handouts from the government.
Mind you, this is all within the context of a discussion about whether or not we should pay our state troopers for the overtime they work? Seriously? Is this even a topic for discussion? No. It isn't; it shouldn't be because almost any private citizen would be up in arms if they were required to work overtime without being paid for it. Mind you, there are federal laws that regulate your employer's ability to work you over the full-time limit without paying you overtime.
This funding for overtime isn't a political issue. End of discussion. It should never have been vetoed, regardless of whether this type of veto is legal or not. If Mississippi's governor claims that we can't afford to pay the overtime because of budgetary constraints, then the budget should be trimmed elsewhere. This is just preposterous.
Posted on August 11 at 10:18 a.m.
Please tell me you (SniperX) did not just refer to someone as Oriental. Yikes. If the rest of your post didn't show your ignorance--that part would.
Posted on August 11 at 10:09 a.m.
Use your heads, folks. If you're driving a car, you should ALWAYS yield to the pedestrian. Whether you are or are not within the letter or the spirit of the law--common sense dictates that you YIELD to the person who has roughly one fifteenth the mass of your vehicle.
...and to whomever it was that said Wal Mart came up with a rule that allows pedestrians to cross without looking--that isn't a Wal Mart rule, that's just how things are...in any parking lot. You never have the right to hit a pedestrian.
By the way, to address someone else's comment about the lack of tickets issued: when an infraction is committed, the officer has the right to use his judgment as to whether or not to issue a ticket. His decision not to write one at the time doesn't automatically imply that there was no fault, and it certainly doesn't free the driver from civil liability.
Posted on August 11 at 9:56 a.m.
Hey 000117, learn how to type. That's not my main point, though. If their products are overpriced, maybe it's because they are being forced to pay an unreasonable tax assessment?
Posted on August 5 at 12:50 a.m.
Such drama. It's fun to see that even grown men can turn into Mean Girls--when it's about sports.
Page 1 of 4 | Next
Posted on November 15 at 7:26 a.m.
Properties with historic designations qualify for subsidies, special loans, grants, and other funds intended to keep pieces of history around for future generations. His property certainly qualifies for those types of aid.
If you want to have your property designated as a historic site (and thus qualify for those special programs) you can't then fight attempts to have it brought back to working order and let it crumble. You can only have it one way or the other.
I'd be interested to know if there are potential buyers or donors willing to renovate the building. If there are and he is simply not willing to work with them--then he obviously doesn't care about the historic property.
[not to mention it's a very bad business movie to keep a property you can't afford to buy insurance on--which would have rebuilt the house in the first place, preventing any of this mess]
On Arlington owner appears in court