Financial Management Committee
New members selected for the Financial Management Committee are Commissioners Brown, Campbell, Wilburn and Reedy who join those mandated by the state as members County Executive, School Director and Highway Supervisor. Allen Barrett
posted by Allen Barrett | 10:15 PM
44 Comments:
That committee doesn't sound like a good committee at all for finance. I hope it turns out better than it sounds.
Did it sound better when Bill Holt was chair? Please explain with a comment like that the basis of your opinion. I would love to hear it!
Holt was only on that committee because he was chair of the budget committee. That is one good thing that came out of yesterdays meeting that Holt got beat out. For sure Wendell Wilburn will do a better job as chair of the budget committee as he is one not afraid to speak up for the people.
Now if Campbell could get removed we would be able to make some honest progress. Remember Campbell openly campaigned against financial management, transparency and accountability.
Yea, you're right 11:59. Bill Holt will not stand up for what he knows is right for the taxpayer no matter what. He never questions anything unless he thinks it will jeopardize his relationship with Tee Jackson and Dan Speer. The rubberstamper is gone. Wish Campbell had have gone with him.
Get real Bill Holt has no morals about him. He doesn't care what is right or wrong.
I don't know what you people are talking about, Holt is one of the smartest commissioners we have. You should all be proud of him.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....Ever thought about being a comedian 12:28?
OMG 12:28. How much did Bill Holt pay you to say that?
12:28
The person writing that statement must be Holt himself, a family member, Jackson, Speer or one of his commissioner buddies. Whoever it is they need to be committed to the crazy house.
More simpleton minds poisoned by the politically impotent. And they laughingly say others should go to the crazy house. Think on your own two feet and for yourselves.
Poor old Holt bit the dust. Looked like the duck in Elmer Fudd.
(Ya weely vot'd me out!)
Can all of the commissioners on the new committee add?
10:27
Isn't it a shame we can't have more enlightened people like you in office? The only problem is that you can't get elected. Oh my, how frustrating it must be to have all the answers and lack power.
755 Sounds like you are one who thinks you have the power, but lacks a brain to recognize you're just a mental dwarf who will never reach the top!
10:27
No, you are wrong. I do not want or need power. I don't base my self-worth on having control over others. We both know there are already too many like that.
Perhaps I too recognize my smallness, and that could be the reason I don't care one bit about being at the top. What about you and your ego?
1251 poor widdy biddy thang - like a gnat in an elephants crack - You're there cause you love it
Mr. Barrett,
Why do you allow such trashy talk as the above post? Oh let me guess; it's about free speech. Would you allow such simple-minded posts if they ran counter to what you think?
I'm disappointed in you, because you really know better. I'm just glad I don't have to listen to your Sunday sermons.
It is a shame we have to listen to all of your sermons. You say one thing and do another. The way I see it you are a hypocrite.
8:38
I think hypocrisy is precisely what 6:20 was attempting to point out. You missed a simple point.
I did not miss anything. She is the one that always has something to say about Mr. Barrett instead of the topic that everyone is trying to discuss.
Mr or Mrs Or whatever 6:20
The question isn't whether Mr. Barrett should allow trash talk on this blog but why do you continually try to be his judge?
No I'm not talking about his behavior but you try to discredit everything about him, even what his motivations are, even while admitting you don't know him. Talk about arrogance. One thing I have learned in my relatively short life,31 years plus, is that no one can know what the motivations of another person are, only imagine them. This was drummed into my head by a very wise high school teacher and even greater efforts were made in college.
One thing about free speech is that it's costly and it's irritating when it doesn't agree with your point of view, but in order to have free speech censorship must be used only as a last resort and even then in very limited amounts. Mr. Barrett has made it clear on this blog that the only speech that will be censored is vulgarities. I happen to agree with him on this and appreciate his efforts to prevent bad language. Trash talk is not necessarily vulgar. On occasion I have read comments from Mr. Barrett where he has made it very clear he does not agree with many things written on this blog but believes what he finds objectionable shouldn't necessarily be censored including the real hate filled remarks you often leave here.
The lowest part of your hypocrisy is in your attacks on his religious activities. I would suggest that maybe you should listen to some of his sermons based on what I remember from his radio program they would surely help you grow spiritually, but you don't really seem interested in spiritual growth only the expression of your immature self-righteousness.
10:54
Calm down! I don't think anyone was trying to judge the one you so admire. God's word alone does that. Oh, by the way, aren't you judging by accusing the writer of self-righteousness? You certainly are, because you know nothing about the intents of his/her heart. Ouch!
I agree wholeheartedly that the question really is as stated in the post that so inflamed and irritated you.
I go to church regularly, and AM a believer, but I think the way a man conducts his daily life and the way he treats others are his best sermons. I wouldn't listen to anything he has to say about religion.
8:13 My accusation of self righteousness was limited to your "expressions" not your motivations. Get someone to explain the difference for you.
As I stated in my first statement, no one can know the motivation of another person. You can only guess at such knowledge or rely on what a person tells you about their own motivation which could be incorrect. It is you who has and continues to judge things your have no knowledge of by your own admissions. Talk to Mr. Barrett then make your comments based on that conversation not on the one sided feelings harbored in your own feeble mind. Your weakened man made religion of cliches is amazing exceeded only by your closed mindedness. Are you not aware that even Jesus listened as Satan spoke to him. You are beyond stupid because you obviously know better but chose to do bad.
10:03
Your accusation (judging) was limited to expression and not motivation? What?
You knew exactly what I meant when I said I wouldn't listen to a thing the man has to say about religion. And how dare you to sit in judgment over my Christianity! Or were you judging my expressions again? What a joke.
7:48
Would you mind explaining to me why it's ok for Mr. Barrett to say all manner of things about Mrs. Vanzant, but it's NOT ok for anyone to say a single word against him? Please help me to understand that, and then perhaps we can talk about fairness, free speech, arrogance, bias, and etc.
Mrs. Vansant is an elected official that is supposed to be doing what is good for the county and the people in it. Mr. Barrett only reports what he sees and hears in the meetings. He is not a public official. Can you not understand the difference or is it that you don't want to"
6:18
In spite of all the accusations to the contrary, I think Mrs. Vanzant is acting in the best interests of the county.
Now, how about answering the question? Why is it ok to criticize one and not the other? I could ask the same thing you asked me. Do you just not understand the question or choose not to understand it?
To the anonymous 4 Oct 5:10PM poster.
You ask, "Would you mind explaining to me why it's ok for Mr. Barrett to say all manner of things about Mrs. Vanzant, but it's NOT ok for anyone to say a single word against him?"
First of all I would strongly dispute the premise of your question.
No one has ever been prevented from questioning me or anything I have written, that clearly is one of the reasons I post my name on each of my entries.
The second thing is that I have not posted "all manner of things about Mrs. Vanzant". Not one time have I posted anything about her without also posting the reason for the statement or accusation. When I have called her a "liar" I gave the specific reason for such a strong statement. The only thing I have asked of those who criticize me is that you also include the specific reason for the criticism and that it be based on facts not feelings. You have failed to do than at every opportunity. You have made unsubstantiated anonymous accusations against me and when called on them you try to change the subject even deny the very words you wrote. I have even offered monetary rewards at times if you could produce one item proving I intentionally lied about a matter. I remember the incident involving the cyanide where "you" claimed to have proof the cyanide had been removed from the county more than a week prior to when I claimed it was removed. I offered to announce from the Courthouse gazebo I was wrong and would never again post on this blog or write a letter to the newspaper if you produced such proof..... you never produced the receipt or anything else. Of course as you said at the time you had such proof but you were lying or dreaming for I had video taped the removal from White and Stafford by the Hazmat crew.
Here's the thing about you that reveals so much of your hypocrisy
as I have pointed out before. You claim, by your statements, to know my motivations, the intentions of my heart and I believe no one can truly know the motivation of another person only what they tell you and even that can't be relied on 100%. That's why humans were never given the responsibility to judge another person's motivations only their actions. So in simple terms I can determine the guilt of a person who has stolen from another but I can determine what motivated them to steal.
You on the other hand have many times not only asked questions of me and then answered that question you have even stated the reasons why I have done a thing.
I don't mind criticism I just don't appreciate mindless, unsupportable feeling based absurdities. Allen Barrett
wab,
Cyanide? I have no earthly idea what you are talking about, so your accusation is false. THAT was an unsubstantiated allegation on your part. May I have your apology for that?
Since you don't mind criticism, please answer the question...phrased a bit differently. Why is it that you can call Mrs. Vanzant a liar and other things and nobody is supposed to say a word about you? Would you agree with me that such is not a tenet of free speech?
Anonymous, anonymous, anonymous how you amaze me with your attempts to avert topics and responsibility. Perhaps it's a matter of senility or just another attempt at denial of responsibility on your part that prevents you remembering your post on this matter.
If you will go back to 4 March 2007
under the topic "Flash, Flash, Flash... Cyanide Found on the Square" you can read the 104 comments, many clearly from you, discussing this issue.
As for your question I answered it in my 12:02 post. But for your benefit I'll try and make it clear enough for even you.
I can call Mrs. Vanzant a liar because she lies and I have provided the proof of those lies when I have referred to her as a liar then placed my name on the post so the source could be easily identified. By the way I have never called her anything on this blog without first saying it to her face.
Nothing prevents you from saying what you will about me, there is even a special thread on this blog just for that, but you lose credibility when you post something about me or anyone else and refuse to provide evidence supporting your accusations or hide behind your chosen anonymous label.
My appreciation of "Freedom of Speech" rest in the idea that it is a privilege for those who take responsibility for it. Allen Barrett
avert? Wouldn't you say divert? You amaze me.
By the way, don't try to condescend to me. I know what I said and didn't say. Shall I call you a liar (as you do Mrs. Vanzant) if you accuse me of making comments about cyanide? No, I have a bit more class than that. When may I expect your apology?
Here's something for your consideration, and please understand that I make no threat here. This is simply food for thought. One of these days you just might call the wrong man's wife a name and that will not be a good day for you. Please accept that comment in the spitit with which it is given.
In closing, I would still like you to answer my question. Why is it ok for you to call people names and NOT ok when someone like me challenges your behavior? I rephrased my question to make it clear enough for even you.
To the anonymous 6 Oct 6:24 AM poster.
Thanks for the grammar correction but until you learn the meaning of words perhaps you should focus on your own spelling (spitit) instead. I used the word “avert” a transitive verb which means to turn away as in avoidance. The intransitive verb “divert” means to turn from one course to another. So you “divert” traffic around an accident but you “avert” or avoid disaster. So when I stated, “anonymous how you amaze me with your attempts to avert topics and responsibility” that is exactly what I meant. No condescension implied only intended.
If you say you did not write anything about the cyanide situation I will simply call you a liar and a coward for not taking responsibility for your lie. It’s a simple matter for anyone to look back at the postings under that topic and easily determine which are your postings. As for my apology to you about your lie I have made arrangements for that on my two hundredth birthday.
Your threat is inappropriate as it is not my manner to speak of ladies with anything other than respect. However living in an age of “equality” where positions are filled based on qualifications rather than gender I must respond based on the actions of a person and since I don’t hide behind an anonymous label apparently I am not fearful of any possible consequences.
In reference to your closing I once again must state the premise of your question is totally and completely inaccurate and small minded. I have not said it was wrong for you to challenge my behavior; I even posted a thread for you, or anyone else, to do just that if you choose. I have not read where anyone else criticized you for challenging my behavior. What I and others have criticized is the fact your challenges have no basis other than your inadequate feelings. If you supply something factual to support those feeling perhaps we would have something to discuss but as it now stands your challenges have simply been buckets with no bottoms useless for all but imbeciles determine to fill them with sand one grain at a time. Basically when it comes to your complaints, challenges, and whining it’s all a matter of Deja Moo. Allen Barrett
wab
Inadequate feelings? What a laugher that statement was! My feelings are more than adequate, and my perceptions are right on target when it comes to your being too prideful and arrogant to give me the apology I deserve for your "unsubstantiated allegations" anout the cyanide posts. You owe me an apology, but you called me a liar instead. I frankly know nothing about that incident, and therefore wouldn't have been in a position to offer comments one way or the other. But hey, forget the apology. I knew I wouldn't get it anyhow. Regardless, a point was made, wasn't it?
Lastly, would you call it treating a lady with respect when you openly accuse her of being a liar and other things? Perhaps you should check with your English lexicon or dictionary and find out what respect means and maybe do some research on how to treat a lady with respect? Just a couple of suggestions. Remember, words do have meanings.
To 4:21
My statement about your “inadequate feelings” was not a reference to how you feel but that your feelings when used as the basis of your accusations are simply inadequate as support for such accusations. Unfortunately your “perceptions are right on target” only in your feeble mind. It is not pride or arrogance that prevents me from apologizing to you but the fact you lied about your cyanide postings and I have no reason to justify an apology. It was obvious that you knew nothing about the cyanide situation but like so many other situations you knew nothing about but it did not prevent you from posting as if you were an authority. You failed to produce your so called evidence to discredit me then and you offer nothing to support your denials now. Repeating the same thing over and over may make you feel better but it adds nothing to the conversation.
You ask, “would you call it treating a lady with respect when you openly accuse her of being a liar and other things?” A lady or anyone else in a public position of trust looses the privilege of being treated with respect when they behave disrespectfully. There is little in my book that is more disrespectful than lying to a person. Perhaps I could be a bit more diplomatic and refer to the County Executive as someone who stretches the truth, misspeaks with regularity, has trouble sticking to facts, is factually challenged, has a truth allergy or any number of things but being a plain spoken guy I will just stick with referring to her as a liar in the Lisa White situation, the Beth Sigmon situation, the industrial recruiter vote and a number of other situations where I have absolute proof that she lied. If she or you can’t handle that sorry, sue me and take me to court I would love nothing better that to see her on the stand under oath. Yes indeed, as I have told you many times words have meaning and you should learn a few at least, until then it’s just Deja Moo from you. Allen Barrett
wab..
You, as a minister, are out here in public calling Mrs. Vanzant a liar, suggesting lawsuits (sue me), and going to court, etc. Incredible!
You mentioned on another post that you have always treated Mrs. Vanzant with respect and then you turn right around in your last one and show total disrespect for her. And you call her a liar?
Since you refuse to take responsibility for the false accusation you made about me concerning the cyanide discussions, I have no other choice but to call you a liar! And I hate and despise name-calling, but the shoe fits in this situation!
To anonymous of the 7 Oct 5:18 post.
I see no inconsistency in my post as I explained each portion. If you ignore or fail to understand those explanations I suggest you get a third grader to help you.
I am interested in how I failed to take responsibility for my comments about you and the cyanide situation as every word I wrote had my name clearly printed with them. There was no "false accusation" you lied about the cyanide situation and your words, although posted in your usual anonymous fashion, are still on the blog for all to see and make up their own mind. So I have shown you my proof that you are a liar would you please show me your proof that I have lied. As for the shoe fitting I can understand why you're not wearing it as obviously your foot is in your mouth as usual. Allen Barrett
wab...
Your condescension and arrogance are once again noted. I don't need a third grade mentality to take you on in debate.Perhaps you are the one who eneds to get a third grader to help you understand what I meant by stating that you failed to take responsibility for accusing me of making posts with regard to the cyanide situation. How many times do I have to tell you I had nothing to do with those posts, because I knew nothing about what was being discussed. You have no "proof" of your allegation, and I know it's a false statement. So that makes you the liar you like to call Mrs. Vanzant and others. I don't have the proof that you are a liar about my making statements on that thread. But, I know you are bearing false witness, and that, sir, is highly unbecoming of a man in your position.
Again, if the shoe fits, wear it.
I just read the topic about the cyanide and was amazed that I had never hear about it before but then I wasn't aware of this blog until a few months ago. I have to admit there are a number of entries there that are extremely similar to the writings of 4:10's many writings. Did he write them I don't know but they sure have all the characteristics of the same mind.
I'm 4:10, and NO, I didn't write them. I know nothing about the incident in question. Just because my writing style, syntax, or whatever are similar to those of another does not make me the "guilty" party. And yet, I'm called a liar because I will NOT admit to something I didn't do.
To the 6:26 poster.
While I have a strong gut feeling that you are the poster of several entries under the cyanide topic I do not have the hard core proof I usually depend on for such strong statements. I apologize for calling you a liar without the proof positive to support such a claim. Allen Barrett
Than you, wab. I felt like you would eventually do the right thing. Your apology is accepted.
wab,
Why aren't you and every other preacher in this county on that thread about the gay and lesbian issue? The liberals are really trying to justify sin, and this is a golden opportunity for you and others to go after them. Why are you all so silent and particularly you? I've been taking them on as have others, but we need more help. This is important!
Maybe we need more men with the courage of John the Baptist and Nathan.
It seems to me that the cynide incident was memtioned in the local paper, wasn't it?
Yes the cyanide incident was mentioned in the local paper but it was nothing but a statement from Mr Pierre and Mrs Vanzant and the only thing they got right was their names.
Post a Comment
<< Home