Hooray, a prospective county commissioner (and a woman) who can string together coherent thoughts in English! For some, even that rudimentary skill is threatening.

Thomas,

She can't come up with a coherent disclosure form though. Have you seen it? It's chicken stratch.

She didn't write the quote that I posted. That is a review.

Any idiot can write a book...haven't you heard of Karl Marx?

Believe it or not, I HAVE heard of Karl Marx. Groucho Marx was better reading, but George Wallace was deadly.

Thomas, it was a rhetorical question.

Johnny Cash is amazing.

I agree.

You have to be kidding me on the Gonsal disclosure report. Is that what she actually filed?

How can we expect anything better from her as a commissioner if she can not file simple paper work?

I don’t mean to sound ugly here but this lady has no business running for District 4 Commissioner.

Yes he is.

"I don't know this to be fact, but I've heard from several very credible sources that the Billy Copeland, the Mayor of McDonough, retired from Norfolk Southern, which just happens to be the company that owns the tracks that will be the Atlanta-Lovejoy commuter rail will use." Jason.

So what exactly are you insinuating, Jason? That the Mayor participated in a conflict of interest? Even if he was retired from NS (which I have no idea), are you saying he can't have a sincere believe in the benefits of commuter rail? So anyone who sees the merits MUST have dubious motives?

Hey, I'm not here to defend McDonough, they are quite capable of speaking for themselves. And I don't know any of the specifics between
Hampton and McDonough-only what I read here. But I know a cheap shot when I see one! So now McDonough is your latest target for having the audacity to defy the wisdom of the exalted gang.

Unfortunately, biased and defamatory reporting has become standard operating procedure here on railhaters.com.

Keith,

I'm not saying that's the reason he did it. It's something that has been pointed out to me by several individuals and I don't know it to be true either, but the sources that gave me this information are trustworthy.

I do find it interesting that he pushed this resolution through against the wishes of the elected officials of Hampton.

Unfortunately, biased and defamatory reporting has become standard operating procedure here on railhaters.com.
Biased? I have an agenda. It's called personal and economic liberty. Ever heard of it?

There nothing that I have said on this site that cannot be backed up by fact.

Defamatory? Are you accusing me of slander and libel?

First of all I protrayed what I heard as rumor. Secondly, after researching it I know it to be true. The AJC voter's guide says that Copeland "employed for 35 years with Norfolk Southern Railway as a property tax manager within the southeastern states."

Copeland may be sincere in his misguided beliefs, but I'm just trying to point out the facts...and the fact is that Copeland worked for Norfolk Southern.

Keith, I know it's hard for you. You see the project that your cronies want so bad slipping away. Failure is a hard thing to grasp.

Now you say:

"I'm not saying that's the reason he did it. It's something that has been pointed out to me by several individuals....J

But before you said:

"This, if true, explains why Copeland ignored the wishes of Hampton's duly elected leaders." J

It's right there in black and white: you originally suggested the Mayor of McDonough's support for commuter rail was colored and maybe even influenced by a past employer (if the NS connection is even true). I called you on it, and you retracted. That's fine, we can move on now but I suspect this is just the beginning of the pot shots you will be taking at the City of McDonough.

In the future, if you are going to imply an elected official acted inappropriately, then I believe you ought to be able to back it up with hard facts, not just snatch an inuindo out of thin air. You can do much better-I have seen it many times.

Here's a notion: perhaps the reason for the McDonough City Council's actions are exactly as stated in their resolution.......go back and read it again sometime. Of course you won't agree with it but I think they stated their reasoning quite clearly.

Me-fear of failure? Obviously you don't know me. Conversely, you and your gang appear to be positively petrified that not only will commuter rail come to Georgia, but that people will try it, use it, and want want more of it. Yes, a commuter rail system relieving traffic congestion, spuring quality private sector development, and successfully serving our entire community-colleges, sporting events, conventions, tourism, ect. Does such a scenerio make you break out in cold sweats or cause any facial tics? Quick, read another passage from Atlas Shrugged before you go into a seizure........:)

Keith,

I've been taking shots at McDonough since this site started.

I should have worded it better. I'll give you that.

Obviously you don't know me. Conversely, you and your gang appear to be positively petrified that not only will commuter rail come to Georgia, but that people will try it, use it, and want want more of it.
Keith, pull the needle of big government out of your arm for moment.

Rail is a failure. Less than one out of ten people will ride it. You are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.

What me and "my gang" are worried about is seeing a tax increases, growth in government, our money wasted as well funds for roads and highways being diverted away to pay for something that a very, very small percentage of people will use.

Look at the Metro in DC. The federal government had give it a $1.5 billion subsidy to keep it running because it doesn't make enough money to keep it's self running.

The Atlanta-Lovejoy line will be no different.

Keith...let me ask you a question. When was the last time you did something to advance the cause of liberty?

"Keith...let me ask you a question. When was the last time you did something to advance the cause of liberty?" J

Do you fancy yourself a defender and anyone who has a different opinion than you is not concerned with liberty? Oh my, the seizure must have kicked in prematurely. Someone please check on the poor lad before he starts frothing and swallows his tougue!

At least you acknowledged and retracted your inappropriate remarks with respect to the McDonough Mayor. Tis a pity that the short term learning doesn't seems to take. Anyway, that was the item that first caught my attention. The rest of it is pointless.....

Keith, I always default to liberty. I don't want to spend anyone's money nor restrict their personal liberty.

Can you say the same? It's a very simple question and the answer is either yes or no.

Unfortunately, biased and defamatory reporting has become standard operating procedure here on railhaters.com.

Keith,

First of all, there was nothing defamatory about what Jason said. Did he insinuate there was a connection? Yes. Is that wrong? No. It is a citizen's job to be critical of elected officials. I have a news flash for you, Keith. This is going to come as a shock: Most elected officials are not the upstanding citizens you would take them for. Many have ulterior motives on several key issues. These motives, whether real or imagined, need to be examined. I know you'll never admit to it, but what you advocate is blind followership. Instant and unquestioned obedience. These are good concepts in the military, but in politics, they are unacceptable.

Secondly, where do you get off grouping us non-railers into your "exhalted gang"? This is complete bullshit. None of us has ever claimed to have all the facts. At least we do back our opinions up though. Your little assertion is a defense mechanism. You have NOTHING to back your argument up. Absolutely nothing. You have never answered any of the hard questions. But, being the "exhalted" one that I am, I'll give you another shot.

(1) How would the rail be paid for if not with tax money?

(2) How many rail systems in the United States of America are completely self-sufficient? (I.E. Make yearly profits without government subsidies)

(3) How many rail systems in the United States have ever cost equal or less of the projected cost of building and maintenence?

(4) How many rail systems in the United States have ever met or exceeded their capacity expectations?

(5) Specifically, where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to build rail? Roads are in there. Tell me rail.

Third, this isn't FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, Etc. This is NOT a news site. We are under no obligation to be anything but biased. This is a personal blog. Jason's personal blog. If Jason want's to proclaim that the sky is pink, he can. And you know what? He doesn't have to provide you with an alternative point of view. The writers on this site do a good job, however, of backing up their opinions with articles and links to credible news sources or think tanks.

If you think another view point needs to be heard, you're constitutionally entitled to START YOUR OWN BLOG. It's really easy. Just go to google and type "Start My Own Blog". Hell, I'll even pay it a visit and make some comments! Then you can be the "exhalted one" and destroy my comments. But that's fine with me, because I could care less if you agree with me. I'm still gonna comment, and I'm not going to whine like a little girl because some blogger stole my lunch money.

Or better yet, put that alternative view in the comment section! Does this mean your position won't be attacked? No. But at least it'll be heard. You can't force everyone to agree with you.

Do you fancy yourself a defender and anyone who has a different opinion than you is not concerned with liberty?

Keith, when was the last time one of your comments was blocked? When was the last time you were prevented from accessing this site? Jason allows different points of view BECAUSE he respects the right to differ in opinion. That doesn't mean he'll let your opinions, or anyone elses, go undefended. That is the nature of debate.

BTW, I'll take railhaters.com over freedomhaters.com ANYDAY.

"I don't want to spend anyone's money nor restrict their personal liberty. Can you say the same? It's a very simple question and the answer is either yes or no." Jason

Jason, I reject your entire premise. Government routinely funds all sorts of transportation infrastructure such as roads, bridges, canals, ports, airports, ect. You can arque against commuter rail on the basis of cost versus benefit, but your personal liberty argument is not valid. I don't equate public funding of transportation infrastructure as a denial of anyone's personal liberty.

"Where do you get off grouping us non-railers into your "exhalted gang" Jace

Jace, I wasn't going to get into this, but since you asked, here goes. You may not even realize the behavior but nonetheless, here are the observations that led me to refer to you as the exalted gang.

a) All of the front page posters essentially have the same ideology, especially with respect to commuter rail.

b) You stick together and gang up on any opposition, especially newcomers and outsiders, with opposing views.

c) Gang members regularly "wait in the wings" while an outsider debates back and forth with a fellow gang member. If they see their compadre is in trouble, then they will jump in and try to bail them out (as you have attempted here).

d) After a gang member has swooped in to the rescue, the orginal debating gang member will often fall back to a support position, OR additional gang members will join in per Item B above.

e) If anyone successfully stands toe to toe with a gang member, then that REALLY gets the attention of the remaining members. The outsider will then be vigoriously tag teamed. It is not ideas that prevail, only superior numbers.

f) Gang Members will sometimes sit out controversial debates, rather than publicly oppose a fellow gang member, even if they largely agree with the outsider's position. There are a few exceptions (Nash Farms), but that is the general practice.

g) Even if a Gang member does publicly oppose another member, they will usually do so in a very differential way, and more often than not, "agreeing to disagree", rather than pushing an esculation, like is typically done with everyone else. At no time will gang members use inflamatory language against each other-that is reserved for everyone else.

h) Gang members will tend to defend each other no matter what, using all sorts of convoluted rationales, even when a fellow gang member has clearly crossed the line with free-associations, partial quotes taken out of context, inuindo, defamation, crude and borderline language, whatever.

But hey, like you said, I choose to participate, proudly, knowing the deck is stacked, so no sour grapes at all. You asked why I refer to you guys as the "exalted gang"-now you know. I'm sure there are many readers who have passionately held convictions, would like to express them, but have seen these patterns and would rather not be in the crosshairs. Again, it is not the validity of your ideas which often prevails during these heated debates, only attrition and superior numbers. You guys are kidding yourselves if you think otherwise.

As far as your "hard questions on rail, it's real simple-I expect commuter rail and transit to meet the same fiscal standard as any other government funded infrastructure such as roads, bridges, canals, ports, airports, dams, reservoirs, water lines, sewer lines, treatment plants, ect. We absolutely must be fiscally responsible and not give government a blank check on ANY infrastructure expenditure.

By the way, many of these transportation methods were not even invented when the Constitution was written and Jason says the Post Roads reference in the Constitution has more to do with Post Offices, anyway. You might want to put your heads together on that one.

Jace, as far as the rest our conversation, I recommend we suspend it until you are less worked up......I will try to do my part, depending on your response.

Good day, sir.

Keith, you are advocating taking more of my money from me to use for a sevice that I'll never come within 50 feet of. You are advocating theft, but you are using the government to do it. How is that not a restriction of my personal liberty?

I ask you again...when was the last time you did something for the cause of liberty? Just answer the question. If you can't...then you aren't worth anymore of time or energy.

By the way, many of these transportation methods were not even invented when the Constitution was written and Jason says the Post Roads reference in the Constitution has more to do with Post Offices, anyway.
This statement reeks of ignorance.

The Founders left a way for the Constitution to be amended, there have been 17 amendments since it was written, as recently as 1992.

Probably 90% of what Congress does is unconstitutional. Just because they do it doesn't make it right.

Keith, of course you reject the premise because in order to argue it you'd have to have some basic knowledge of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

As far as your gang analogy. The Chamber has been forcing this rail down our throats for the last 18 months. They would not allow anyone to speak of the merits of the rail, nor present any other ideas at their forum in March of last year. I watched them tell several people that they weren't interested in what they had to say.

At least here you get to present your opinion and Jace is right, if you don't like how things are ran then you can start your own blog.

"Keith, you are advocating taking more of my money from me to use for a sevice that I'll never come within 50 feet of. You are advocating theft, but you are using the government to do it. How is that not a restriction of my personal liberty?". Jason

With respect to infrastructure, the "I'll never use it" argument is invalid. You may or may not have the opportunity to use most of the existing infrastructure in the United States. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be publicly funded and built. Likewise, there is undoubtedly infrastructure which you use, that others do not, yet we all still contribute. Unless you are paving your own road, hauling your own water and deposing of your own sewerage, or living entirely off your own land in a remote location, you are being inconsistent. All of these services are subsidized, to varying degrees. Government has a neccesary role in the implimetation and maintenance of infrastructure-it is not an assault on your personal liberty to recognize this.

Keith,

Again...roads are a Constitutional function of government. How many times have I said that.

This is why you reject the premise of the argument. Because you don't have an understand of it's underlying principles. By yourself a copy of Constitution and The Federalist Papers. I'm tired of having to walk your through it.

The only necessary role of government is to protect my liberties.

Answer my question, Keith. Last chance.

You can arque against commuter rail on the basis of cost versus benefit, but your personal liberty argument is not valid.

Keith,

First of all, YOU haven't even argued your position from a cost/benefit perspective, because you absolutely refuse to answer the questions I posted. How is continually giving billions of dollars in subsisdies, increasing property taxes, paying more than the projected cost for something that will carry less than the projected number just so Keith can have a shorter trip to work beneficial?

You might want to stick to the constitutional arguments, Keith. Because as a matter of cost/benefit, the facts and history are definately against you. Come to think of it, they're against you in a Constitutional argument as well.

I'm about tired of going through the same crap over and over just to have you avoid the questions. So, against my better judgement, here they are ONE MORE TIME:

(1) How would the rail be paid for if not with tax money?

(2) How many rail systems in the United States of America are completely self-sufficient? (I.E. Make yearly profits without government subsidies)

(3) How many rail systems in the United States have ever cost equal or less of the projected cost of building and maintenence?

(4) How many rail systems in the United States have ever met or exceeded their capacity expectations?

(5) Specifically, where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to build rail? Roads are in there. Tell me rail.

Put up or shut up, Keith. Have fun with your new blog www.freedomhaters.com

Remember, Jace...he doesn't supporting tax increases for commuter rail, a position that makes absolutely no since at all.

If you divert money away from roads and put it toward commuter rail, the roads (the primary source of transportation for 99% of commuters) will be neglected. The only way to fix the problem will be to increase taxes.

One at a time guys -unless you're running EGELM items, b, e and h).

"Again...roads are a Constitutional function of government. How many times have I said that." Jason

Jason: So roads are Ok, everything else is a denial of your personal liberty? How about airports, canals, ports, waterways, dams, reserviors, etc. Ever board a plane or a ship? If so, did you toss in an extra user fee on general principle, or just take advantage of the subsidy like the rest of us? And if you are using local infrastucture, like water and sewer, and we are all contributing, how come that is not an assault on our personal liberty? Just wondering.

Jace: I have answered your questions, over and over again, yesterday, today, last week, last month. You just don't want to acknowledge it. I too grow tired of repeating myself. Loud and frequent does not equal right. Enough is enough-I resent the suggestion that anyone who disagrees with you and Jason on commuter rail is a freedom hater. There are other points of view outside this little room......

Keith,

You have not answered the questions. You have avoided them. I guess where you really stand on this issue now. As long as you get yours, you could care less about a cost/benefit analysis.

Quit stalling and answer the questions, Keith.

Put up or shut up.

www.freedomhaters.com

Keith,

This is the last time I will respond to you. I'm sick and damn tired of repeating myself to you. You are ignoring my questions, which leads me to believe that you have never done anything to promote liberty. That's sad.

And it's clear that you do not have even the slightest understand of the Constitution and the ideals of liberty.

How about airports, canals, ports, waterways, dams, reserviors, etc. Ever board a plane or a ship? If so, did you toss in an extra user fee on general principle, or just take advantage of the subsidy like the rest of us? And if you are using local infrastucture, like water and sewer, and we are all contributing, how come that is not an assault on our personal liberty?
As I have said "over and over again, yesterday, today, last week, last month" I am a capitalist. I believe that the private sector should provide these services, not government.

If you are taking my money by force, then yes...it's a violation of my personal liberty.

There are other points of view outside this little room......
No, there isn't a point of view. There is money and power and the people you work with on this issue have a lot of it.

At least your point of view is allowed here. Your side tries to silence dissent.

You ignore the questions we ask you because you know you can't defend your positions from a position of freedom. Do you realize how pathetic it makes you look?

"I believe that the private sector should provide these services, not government." Jason.

Fair enough. You have made your position clear. Using your erronous interpretion of personal autonomy and freedom, we would most likely have little or no public infrastructure. No Federal Highways, no airports, no ports, no reserviors, no waterways, no water and sewer services or treatment plants, not much of anything. Your distorted version of capitalism sounds more like a third world country.

Needless to say, I adamently disagree with you, as would most Americans, I believe. I am not concerned at all that you think I look pathetic.

It's just as well that you don't respond further-this is getting completely out of hand. Hopefully, you are not just "tagging out" with one of the others.......

Keith,

You have no idea what Captialism is. Get educated.

Also...the highway system was created under the national defense clause of the Constitution.

Using your erronous interpretion of personal autonomy and freedom, we would most likely have little or no public infrastructure. No Federal Highways, no airports, no ports, no reserviors, no waterways, no water and sewer services or treatment plants, not much of anything.

Prove it. And answer the questions.

Keith,

At one point in our nation's history, most Americans thought it was okay to own black people as slaves.

Just because "most Americans" think something, doesn't necessarily make it right.

I get the feeling that if you were a politician you would just lick your finger and stick it into the wind, to see what the current polls are showing. And then act accordingly without any core principles.

Jason's idea of liberty is dead on. Liberty means having the government out of our lives as much as possible for better or worse. Your idea of liberty is to use other people's money to your advantage. That isn't liberty--it's collectivism.

Also,

The first airports, seaports, and resevoirs were private sector enterprises.

The government taking over these enterprises is why all of them are either inefficient, poorly secured, or stinking cespools of waste. Get educated.

"The government taking over these enterprises is why all of them are either inefficient, poorly secured, or stinking cespools of waste". Jace

So do you advocate privatizing most public infrastucture, or what? What EXACTLY are you recommending? Perhaps we should sell off that big government lake you live on. Lord knows, I could use the money. Henceforth, the shoreline landowners will be responsible for dam maintenance. Better brush up on your repelling.........:)

"Also...the highway system was created under the national defense clause of the Constitution". Jason

What about the Federal Highway System's ongoing maintenance and expansion? There's a few bridges that will need replacing in the next ten to twenty years. Unconstitutional in your eyes, since you've already said you were against public funding of the entire system? Just trying to get a complete understanding of the depth of your radical individualism.

Yes, Keith. That is exactly what I am advocating. Get the government out of it all. Turn it back over to the Private sector.

Is small-government capitalism too much for you to digest?

What about the Federal Highway System's ongoing maintenance and expansion?
My answer is in the quote you pulled.

There's a few bridges that will need replacing in the next ten to twenty years.
If they are part of the interstate system, then they are part of the national defense.

Unconstitutional in your eyes, since you've already said you were against public funding of the entire system?
I don't recall saying that I was against federal funding of the interstate system, seeing as that it serves a Constitutional purpose.

Just trying to get a complete understanding of the depth of your radical individualism.
This country was founded on the ideals of individuality and liberty.

Since when did freedom become radical?

When was the last time you did something for the cause of liberty?

Answer the damn question, Keith.

"I don't recall saying that I was against federal funding of the interstate system, seeing as that it serves a Constitutional purpose." Jason

You previously said you were against public funding for the Federal Highway System and the National Parks System. Don't you remember?

I don't oppose funding for the Federal Highway system on the grounds of national defense and interstate commerce, though it was created for defense.

I don't ever recall saying such a thing.

I do oppose funding for parks.

"I don't oppose funding for the Federal Highway system on the grounds of national defense and interstate commerce, though it was created for defense."

Exxxxxcellent. One down and about nine more to go. Hey, I think I just accidently advanced the cause of liberty.....for I-75 commuters......:)

Now, about those National Parks you oppose. Would you like to see an itemized list so you can rethink them individually?