It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“Gee, they are all black,” Butner posted. “I guess the white folk could not get off because they were too busy working (and) being productive, good citizens.”
He also claimed liberals and Democrats “don’t have a principled bone in their body and they don’t care even if our constitutional republic is destroyed.”
“To hell with the lesbos, queers, liberals and baby killers,” he added.
“The primary difference between the leaders of the Confederate States of America and the Union is that Confederate leaders were godly gentlemen and the Union folks were not,” Butner posted June 5.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development met with the county chairman Tuesday to discuss the issue. There is no formal investigation at this time.
County Commissioner Craig Pierce said the county cannot fire Butner for what he does on his personal time.
“Until we have something from a department that is requiring or requesting us to take some action, we aren't in a position to do anything," he said.
originally posted by: Daughter2
Strange timing.....
I just recently had an interview with a housing authority - not the one in the article- and I could tell the guy HATED poor people.
He drilled me about my personal finances and debt. And not just in passing, these were very specific questions.
It made me so angry. I went on to tell him about my experience being homeless as a child and that I thought it would add to my understanding of how important agencies like these are to people.
He looked at me with such disgust - needless to say I didn't get the job.
So people do have a right to say what they want but if their public views show they do not believe in handling their programs according to the law, then they should not have that job.
originally posted by: Moresby
a reply to: abe froman
It's quite simple: There is no freedom of speech if speech we don't like isn't protected with the same vigor as speech we do like.
originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Moresby
Here we go again. The 1st protects the populous from the GOVERNMENT making laws to prohibit free speech. Not a private entity. Like a housing authority. They can set any rules they want on acceptable speech.
originally posted by: Moresby
originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Moresby
Here we go again. The 1st protects the populous from the GOVERNMENT making laws to prohibit free speech. Not a private entity. Like a housing authority. They can set any rules they want on acceptable speech.
He wasn't speaking as a member of the housing authority. He was speaking as a private citizen.
Also, the housing authority isn't a private entity.
Plus, his term ends in September. This a complete link-bait non story.
originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: theantediluvianYou just proved my point.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
originally posted by: Moresby
originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Moresby
Here we go again. The 1st protects the populous from the GOVERNMENT making laws to prohibit free speech. Not a private entity. Like a housing authority. They can set any rules they want on acceptable speech.
He wasn't speaking as a member of the housing authority. He was speaking as a private citizen.
Also, the housing authority isn't a private entity.
Plus, his term ends in September. This a complete link-bait non story.
You keep harping on the fact that his term is up in September. I don't see how that's particularly relevant to the issue at hand? So if his term ended in 2 years rather than 2 months, would that change your opinion?
originally posted by: Moresby
originally posted by: theantediluvian
originally posted by: Moresby
originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Moresby
Here we go again. The 1st protects the populous from the GOVERNMENT making laws to prohibit free speech. Not a private entity. Like a housing authority. They can set any rules they want on acceptable speech.
He wasn't speaking as a member of the housing authority. He was speaking as a private citizen.
Also, the housing authority isn't a private entity.
Plus, his term ends in September. This a complete link-bait non story.
You keep harping on the fact that his term is up in September. I don't see how that's particularly relevant to the issue at hand? So if his term ended in 2 years rather than 2 months, would that change your opinion?
Because he's not resigning. And, by the time their investigation finishes, he'll already be gone.
originally posted by: Daughter2
Strange timing.....
I just recently had an interview with a housing authority - not the one in the article- and I could tell the guy HATED poor people.
He drilled me about my personal finances and debt. And not just in passing, these were very specific questions.
It made me so angry. I went on to tell him about my experience being homeless as a child and that I thought it would add to my understanding of how important agencies like these are to people.
He looked at me with such disgust - needless to say I didn't get the job.
So people do have a right to say what they want but if their public views show they do not believe in handling their programs according to the law, then they should not have that job.