Does Keith O have a profile here, too?
"We knew we could attract a lot of people if we wrote it a certain way — kind of throwing bombs and vilifying people. Or we could try to influence a few hundred people that mattered. So we went that direction."
Thanks for including that quote. I may never stop laughing. How many suburban elected officials has this disgraced former county employee not slandered and personally attacked? You could count them on one hand.
This is a Flyer article worth revisiting: http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/city-b…
Here's what Jesus said about marriage, as recorded in the gospel of Mark: "At the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
Right, 95. Thanks for correcting my correction.
Curry Todd represents Dist 97. Jim Harrell is challenging Steve McManus in Dist 96.
Once again, I must ask that if you use an image I created you need to provide proper attribution, as indicated in the photo license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fishkite/8898…
You were responding directly to each of Hollihan's questions, Mr. Carpenter, not to a quote from the article, which is why he did and still deserves your apology, a fact you now feign to recognize. I reject your new set of personal attacks, which are as completely unsubstantiated, bogus and ill-considered as your earlier ones, and refer you back to my previous statement.
Mr. Carpenter, it's regretful that you would react to Hollihan's sensible questions, and my second, with such an immature, belligerent attitude. It's unbecoming of an elected public official, and speaks poorly of you as a professional. Each of Hollihan's comments were interrogative, as indicated by the question marks at the end. Thus, he wasn't being "to [sic] lazy" to ask about a program that, as I briefly demonstrated, was introduced to the public with a different set of justifications than are being used now. Instead, Hollihan was doing just that, asking. Rather than thanking him for the question and taking the opportunity to explain, you responded by labeling him as lazy or unwilling to listen. Now you've doubled-down with your attempt to belittle me and my so-called "idea of research," mischaracterizing my comments and jumping to the ridiculous conclusion that I've 1. offered a position on the office and its budget, 2. that my position was negative, and 3. that I've failed to "offer [a] viable alternative." You've made an incredibly shameful spectacle here, and I must again ask for your apology.
All Comments »
By Micaela Watts
download this issue
click here to see more »