Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison has been stumping for school board candidate Donna Williams in this 60-second spot appearing on radio stations.
The ad stresses Williams' professional background, her time as a school volunteer and her support for neighborhood schools. Williams also says she "will work to ensure fair distribution of academic programs for all students," which basically means looking at the magnet/non-magnet divide.
Here's the text of the ad:
Harrison: "I am Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison asking you to vote for Donna Williams, candidate for school board in District 6. I wholeheartedly endorse Donna in this non-partisan race. Donna is a person of high integrity, great ability and a capacity for hard work. And as a nurse she has shown that she is a very caring person."
Williams: "Thank you Sheriff. And I'm also a businesswoman who has the background to be an efficient manager of the taxpayers' money. I have lived in District 6 for 24 years. My four grown children all attended District 6 schools and now I'm the grandmother of seven, all of whom live in Wake County. I've volunteered in our schools for more than 20 years and I'm committed to solving the problems that currently exist. I will work to ensure fair distribution of academic programs for all students."
Harrison: "Donna is also the only candidate in District 6 that supports neighborhood schools. Please vote for Donna Williams for school board."
Williams: "I look forward to working with you Sheriff on behalf of the people of Wake County. I'm Donna Williams and this message was authorized and paid for by Donna for School Board."
Comments
And this from a guy who has presided....
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 09:12 — bpuli9999over an 8 percent increase in overall crime in Wake County. Maybe he should focus on his job instead of getting involved in unrelated stuff.
You Have Lost Your Mind
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 16:38 — lawyerjohnOh an increase in crime in Wake County? I bet the increase in illegal aliens far exceeds the increase you mentioned and if you'd like to take the time to come to the courthouse where I do my thing you'd see that the amount of "accused" can't speak English. As a defense attorney, even I have total respect for Sheriff Donnie Harrison and all he's accomplished. You want to put forth your stupid opinions on the school board go ahead but don't come into my arena and make stupid charges. If Donnie Harrison personally endorses a candidate, in Wake County that means something because if you look at the record, he doesn't do that often.
LOL!
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 16:59 — bpuli9999Sorry if I encroached upon YOUR arena of making stupid comments.
And are we talking about the same Donnie Harrison with his very high personal standards and morals? Your personal standards must not be very high either.
You Be We Are
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 17:11 — lawyerjohnDonnie Harrison is respected by a huge percentage across the county. I'd be lucky to have people think as much of me as they do of him. I'm an attorney so we know that my personal standards aren't very high, until Donnie's boys get you and then you NEED ME to save your sorry butt. How cool would it be that someday you have to call me to keep you out of Donnie's Hotel? I wouldn't even charge you just for the priviledge.
That won't be....
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 18:05 — bpuli9999necessary. Unlike you, I actually respect the law.
Oh do you?
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 18:13 — lawyerjohnBy your posts you respect nothing. I live the law and do my best everyday to keep your freedoms. You or your family is going to slip up some day and you better pray I'm there to rescue you. Donnies hotel isn't pleasant. Do you want to take that chance? I think not
Don't give yourself airs....
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 18:20 — bpuli9999next you are going to say you are more patriotic than me! A republican lawyer fighting for someone's freedoms - now that's funny.
No actually
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 18:43 — lawyerjohnI would next say you're a moron since I'm unaffiliated. And when I'm saving your butt do you really care? Heck no you're just thankful I'm damn good at what I do. Watch out for your next glass of wine, it might be the one that makes you call me and then we will see how pompous you are.
What is your obsession...
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 19:02 — bpuli9999with my butt? That's in three consecutive posts. Stop it and find yourself someone who is interested in that kind of stuff.
You're something
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 20:11 — lawyerjohnButt is only because I have the good decorum to not use other words that would be appropriate but less tasteful. You're still a moron. How's that? Back to the issues...bring your A game when playing with me as I'll spank you silly.
Fascist conservatives
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 05:49 — hoosierhysteriaThe tea party is over on October 11, 2011!
Yes! We've got to stop
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 08:06 — shearertwYes! We've got to stop those evil people who want a limited government, lower taxes for all, personal responsibility and individual freedom. Those ideas simply cannot be tolerated in America.
Stop spouting...
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 19:07 — bpuli9999meaningless talking points.
Where do you want to limit government? When the government decides who one can get married to? When a woman can decide to have an abortion? That is as intrusive of a government as it can get.
And you talk about individual freedom and personal responsibility? Freedom to do what? What the government lets you?
Lower taxes? You are okay with spending 2 trillion dollars on wars? Where do you think that money comes from?
Let's limit government
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 20:39 — lawyerjohnLike today in California where under 18 can't go to tanning booth but can kill an unborn child without parents knowledge. Wanna go there with me moron?
Should government say it is
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 19:21 — woodstockShould government say it is okay for brothers to marry sisters or fathers to marry daughters? That is a pretty radical -- and sick -- point of view. Are you suggesting that be allowed to happen, or do you agree there have been long standing limitations on who may marry whom?
When a woman has an abortion, a human life is put to death. Where is the right of the unborn child in your scenario? Yet, I bet you protest when a serial killer is put to death.
if only that was what they offered
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:10 — changewcpss1If they actually supported those things, then that would be great! But they don't. Yes, they are evil because they support:
And many many more things that are frankly, yes, evil.
This is easy...let me take
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:48 — shearertwThis is easy...let me take this one at a time:
Me paying over 20% of my income to the government when someone making a lot more than I do only has to pay 10%.
This statement is completely FALSE. In fact, even the richest folks like Warren Buffet who get most of their income from capital gains pay a rate of 15%. If you factor in the amount of taxes they pay compared to you, you're nothing more than a rounding error. The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the total tax bill. Does that sound fair to you?
Limiting a woman's individual freedom to make medical decisions on her own.
I've never heard any Tea Party person advocate for that. Some (not sure if it’s a majority of them) don't view the life of an unborn, viable fetus as a "medical decision". I don’t see how that view point makes anyone "evil".
Limiting my individual freedom to vote if I don't have a driver's license.
Again, completely FALSE. No one is suggesting you must have a driver's license. Any government approved picture ID will work and all proposals I've seen have advocated for the cost of that ID to be free to low income people. Voting is a privledge, not a right, in the US. I do not see how obtaining a free picture ID is an obstical that would stop any reasonable person from voting.
Making me personally responsible for educating my children with fewer and fewer resources.
God forbid you be responsible for your children!? I've not heard serious Tea Party person advocate for not providing support to educate children. The means just may be different
Limiting access to higher education if you didn't happen to be born here, even though you have lived here since you were an infant and have attended public schools your entire life. Because we all know the less educated our society is, the better off we'll all be.
You appear to be advocating for a position that the states subsidize (from tax payer's money) the education of children who are here illegally (albeit due to their parents decision). Well....can those children legally work in the US once they receive that education? Answer - NO! What benefit is it to the US taxpayer that we subsidize the education of someone who cannot work here legally? That appears moronic to me outside of the fact that we have limited education resources which should be reserved for people living here LEGALLY. If we did not offer such stupid benefits and subsidies to the children of illegal immigrants, there is a high likelihood they would return home considering their children do not have a future in this country as illegal aliens.
That statement of yours about
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 16:09 — bpuli9999the top 10% paying 70% applies only to federal income taxes. And you are trying to make it sound like it's all taxes.
I should have (and meant to)
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 17:56 — shearertwI should have (and meant to) stipulate I was referring to income taxes which is what the original point was about that I was responding to.....
Well, yeah...
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 16:21 — Bob_SconceApart from borrowing, income taxes are the primary way that the federal government funds itself. The question is how much of the cost of government should be borne by the rich?
Payroll taxes are allocated to pay future benefits to the people who pay those taxes, and do not go into the general cost of government. (Except to the extent the SS Trust fund buys gov't bonds.)
Income taxes...
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 17:09 — bpuli9999taxes are only 45% of the revenue sources for the federal government. So 70% of 45% (about 30%) is nowhere close to the 70% of all taxes claim that is being made.
As to your question - don't tell me that the poor get more from the government than the rich. Getting money from the government is just not limited to getting a welfare check.
Pay the same
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 18:23 — lawyerjohnWe are all basically buying services from the govt like national defense. Yet I pay more for my safety than others who pay nothing. If half of America pays no tax to the Feds what does that say about the value of their existence? I for one am tired of giving drones a free ride.
If half of America pays no
Tue, 10/11/2011 - 02:08 — jeffrey1If half of America pays no tax to the Feds what does that say about the value of their existence?
Respectfully, it says they are dirt poor. 76% of those who pay no income taxes make less than $25,000 per year. Just how much would you like them to pay in addition to the payroll taxes and sales taxes that they already pay?
BTW, people with income between $75,000 and $100,000 who did not pay income taxes went from 4,025 in 1996 to 476,624 in 2009 — an increase of almost 12,000%. More than 1,400 millionaires didn't pay income taxes in 2009, either.
Did those "millionaires"
Tue, 10/11/2011 - 07:54 — shearertwDid those "millionaires" have earned income? or did they pay capital gains taxes? In 2009, a lot of people reported significant losses in investments which were deductions both in 1996 and 2009, but people didn't have major losses in 1996. Facts are funny things. Sometimes, they can be misleading when you don't tell the whole story.
I'm ok with people making less than $25K not paying income taxes and only paying payroll and sales taxes. But we don't stop there...many of those individuals get income tax credits (i.e. a check in the mail) + food stamps + Medicaid + F&RL + more and more programs. Those "entitlements" add up to several thousands of $$. That's why the "dirt poor" in the US typically have cable TV, a cell phone, a car (often two), DVD player, etc. etc. We call that "income redistribution" which is how you perpetuate failure and dependency.
Spoken like...
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 19:01 — bpuli9999a true christian.
Next time
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 20:03 — lawyerjohnNext time do me the honor of putting a capital C on Christian. He's only our Lord but what's that to you?. Aren't you lucky you live in America where you don't have to fear being beheaded for your freedom of speech no matter how blasphemous it might be? Some patriot you are.
With you....
Tue, 10/11/2011 - 07:00 — bpuli9999protecting my freedoms! And thanks, as always, for side stepping the issue. You did not answer the issue about Harrison or this one.
Why don't you outline for us
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 17:57 — shearertwWhy don't you outline for us where the rest of the revenue comes from?
or is that inconvenient to your arguement?
Don't tell me the government is getting more revenue from the "poor" than from the "rich"....
Here you go....
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 18:23 — bpuli9999http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sources+of+federal+government+revenues
The interwebs have an answer for every stupid question.
Here you go....
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 18:23 — bpuli9999http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sources+of+federal+government+revenues
The interwebs have an answer for every stupid question.
Ummm... Voting is a
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 14:33 — twatts1000Ummm... Voting is a Right...
typical
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 14:23 — changewcpss1Your response is so predictable. You fit right in with all the other evil facists.
If Voting is a Privilege....
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 12:28 — Skippyscot...what is the mechanism for removing that privilege (other than being sent to jail for an unrelated offense)? Of course, we all know there is no such mechanism. Voting in US elections is a right, enjoyed by every US citizen over the age of 18.
!
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 13:37 — shearertwSome states require you to verify your address....some require picture ID....you have to be resident of the area in which you are voting for local elections....if you commit certain crimes, you can lose the priviledge...if we wanted too, we chould change to law to people over the age of 21.....or 16 for that matter.....There are lots of stipulations set by law around voting. Requiring someone to present a picture ID is just another one. That is why it is not a RIGHT! See link below (from a liberal source). They explain how the Supreme Court does not few (to their dismay) voting as a right guarenteed by the Constitution.
reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/right_to_vote.html
Um...
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 14:14 — Bob_SconceSee the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments, all of which refer to the right to vote.
Note, though, that calling something a "right" does not mean that the government is incapable of burdening that right. We have rights to free speech, for example, but the government can put you in jail for yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. We have a right to bear arms, but the government can prevent you from concealing a firearm on your person. We have the right to vote, but that doesn't mean that the government has to let us do it as often as we want, or that it can't make sure we actually have that right before counting our votes.
In those cases, the question is always whether the government has a strong enough interest in burdening the fundamental right to vote. (My Con Law recollection is that it has to be a "compelling" interest and it also had to be "narrowly tailored" to achieving that purpose.)
I'll concede an error on my
Tue, 10/11/2011 - 08:03 — shearertwI'll concede an error on my part on this one Bob. I do, however, stand by my general statement that requiring a form of picture ID to vote is both Constitutional and just plan common sense and reasonable. When I voted last year, the lady at the voting booth sat there with the entire "book" of eligible voters sitting wide open for all to see. I watched her put a mark by my name after I simply gave her my address, nothing else. I could plainly read (albeit upside down) the names and ADDRESSES of approximately 100 other individuals. Many of these did not have a mark by their name. I could have very simply remembered the name and address of one and got back in a different line, repeated the process and voted 5 or 6 times at least. I doubt things were much different at most other voting centers.
I understand why democrats want stupid, irresponsible people to not have any more barriers to getting their fat butts to the voting booth, but I think any reasonable person would agree asking for voters to have a simple picture ID is not too much to ask.
One step further
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 18:30 — lawyerjohnCon law says it's a right on a specific election day. Not all this early voting crap to make it convenient. What's next " would you like fries with that vote" at a drive thru?
magnet vote
Sun, 10/09/2011 - 21:36 — valsparSo - - - Williams must be planning to take programs from the magnet schools in the district she is running in and spread these programs to schools outside her district? The Hudson forum is where she brought that up. 1/3 of her schools are magnet. And many D6 voters' children are in District 4 magnet schools. Looks like Williams just lost the magnet parent vote.
Feeding the silly season...
Sun, 10/09/2011 - 18:26 — paulastamFSandYou, you and your pal, Woodstock, well and truly sustain the silly season in this forum with your diatribe and unsubstantiated claims.
Back to the issues: A GOP oriented Sheriff backing a GOP candidate for school board is neither surprising or breaking news...
Paula, "Independent, Fair & Speaking Up for MY Kids."
Back At You
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 08:01 — KevPerduePaulAStam, you truly sustain the silly season in this forum with your diatribe and unsubstantiated claims.
Back to the issues: The Democratic oriented educators, newspaper backing liberal candidates for school board is neither surprising or breaking news...
Sort of like ....
Sun, 10/09/2011 - 20:04 — AgentPiercepaula: It's sort of like a Liberal oriented newspaper backing a Liberal candidate for school board. Neither surprising nor breaking news.
And
Mon, 10/10/2011 - 09:13 — Dove314And like a bad broker who reposts his right wing tin foil mantra about "liberal media" onto Keung multiple times per day despite the plethora of contradictory evidence. The fallacy is readily debunked by any with an interest who come by this blog with a simple read of Keung's thread posts and an accounting of the threads by topic. The making mountains out of a single punctuation or phrase taken out of context by broker and others. Not to mention, I tallied the threads for a few weeks just to see if broker's argument had merit. Keung was amazingly fair with roughly equal numbers of topics allocated to Republican candidates (whether direct or by smearing the opposition), Democratic candidates (whether direct or by smearing the opposition), and information about things happening within WCPSS independent of the elections (the assignment plan itself, math placement, etc.) with a tiny side of Jen Mansfield.
Welcome to the salad bar
Sun, 10/09/2011 - 19:28 — FSandYOUGetcha a plate and pony up to the bar. The endless feed of silly season continues.
With dressing!
All while the imposter PaulaAStamSmithMchphersonJonesMellencamp continues with her crystal ball readings and tarot card advising of how the world should be ran according to PaulaAStammerinStanley.
Fork?