Letter From Janet Vanzant
This is a copy of the actual letter Mrs Vanzant sent telling me that I could not speak at the County Commission Meeting. Notice that she acknowledges that my request was made on 21 July 2011.
Thus proving, as some have claimed, that the request was in well within the time requirements.
posted by Allen Barrett | 11:32 AM
151 Comments:
Allen,
The only time requirement for a special called meeting is that it be given to her in time to have you on the agenda when it comes out in the paper or is sent to the commissioners. It was in the paper on the 19th. How many times is it going to have to be said so that you will understand? The special called meeting and the regular meetings require different action.
DAW
what a cry baby!
To DAW
On 23 August at 9:12 AM you posted this, "You would have to have your request in before the notice was put in the paper so that you could be listed on the agenda in the paper."
Today you write, "The only time requirement for a special called meeting is that it be given to her in time to have you on the agenda when it comes out in the paper or is sent to the commissioners.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing in state law or even in local policy that requires a person be listed on the agenda in the newspaper for special or any other kind of meeting, only what the subjects of the called meeting will be. Since I listed the subjects of my focus as the tax rate and the budget, the topics published as agenda items, I was well within the parameters set by state law and local policy to speak.
If there is a state law that requires a person be listed in the newspaper as being on the agenda please state it. There is none and I am referring to "special Called Meetings".
Being what I consider a reasonable and intelligent man I must ask you if you would feel comfortable having a policy that required a person to request to be on the agenda before there is an agenda?
We could argue for another two weeks, but the fact remains that you didn't have a letter in before the agenda was set. State Law says that the agenda can't be changed once it is set.
In your first two paragraphs I was saying the same thing. The law is not hard to understand. You have requested, and are getting to speak at the next meeting. Don't you think that they would have tried to keep you from speaking again if they were as crooked as you make them out to be?
One last time, the agenda was set for the special called meeting and placed in the paper on the 19th. Your letter was received the 21st. If you had been added to the agenda the county would have been breaking the law according to the codes that we listed under the last topic.
It may not seem fair, but everything in life isn't fair. Something being unfair doesn't make it illegal. Just take a look at the Federal Tax Code. You need to take it up with the state if you have any more to say about it. The County Executive and the County Attorney acted according to the law.
DAW,
That is your interpretation and opinion and it shocks no one that it is in opposition to Barrett. I bet if this blog was not here Mr. Barrett would still be denied his rights.
And reading the laws, seeing the posts in the paper and the letter to Mr. Barrett you are just plain wrong as you have been many times before on this blog.
3:46,
You should probably stay out of this discussion because saying that I am clearly wrong proves you have gotten in over your head. At least staying anonymous will keep people from knowing who it is that posts ignorant comments like the one above.
DAW
has anyonw thought about on most agendas is the section "new business"? Could have been put under that if a letter wasn't in before publication...
not for a special called meeting, that is only for regular meetings
now it seems you are trying to find some reason to make him right
DAW, You should have stayed out of it long ago. You make the most ignorant comments I have seen on here besides the enabler. You refuse to read the laws the way they are written.
The comment that a person has to put a request in before the meeting is announced is stupid.
A person has to have time for consideration and compliance and you yourself said there was no way to do that. Now you make up interpretations of the law that shows your stupidity.
Barret did not have to be in the announcement in the paper to speak.
I'm glad you sign your name because every one knows how stupid you are.
DAW
Thank you for setting the kook straight.
DAW and enabler, maybe you two should read part two of Barrett's post again. He actually understands and uses the law to form his opinions. DAW maybe you want to answer the question. Where was the budget published? Why was Barret denied? only hatred towards the man and the rights of the citizens by the executive and commission can be the answer.
5-21-111. Budget -- Hearings -- Supporting documents -- County action.
(a) (1) (A) At least ten (10) days before the proposed budget is to be presented to the governing body, the budget committee shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation the proposed annual operating budget.
(2) Such publication shall also contain a notice of a public hearing to be conducted by the budget committee at which any citizen of the county upon five (5) days' written request shall have the right to appear and state such citizen's views on the budget.
As you can see by the annotated code the requirement to have a public hearing also requires the publishing of the budget not just the announcement of the meeting be “published in a newspaper of general circulation”. Did you ever see the budget published in the Pulaski Citizen? Would you consider the “Ardmore Shopper” to be a newspaper of general circulation? That’s where the announcement was made for the public hearing and used to meet the ten day requirement.
T.C.A 5-5-104 and 105 provide the rules for a special called meeting by the County Executive or the County Legislative Body.
5-5-104 (c) Special meetings of the county legislative body may be called by the county mayor or by petition of a majority of the members of the county legislative body in accordance with TCA 5-5-105
5-5-105 Special Meetings
(b) (1) The county mayor shall be authorized to call a special session of the county legislative body for emergency purposes only by publication in a newspaper published in the county, and by personal notification to the members of the county legislative body at least (2) days before the time of the convening of the county legislative body, in any county that authorizes its county mayor to act in accordance with the provisions of this subsection (b) , by a two thirds (2/3) vote of the county legislative body.
(2) The call or notice shall specify the objects and purposes for which such special session is called, and no other business but that embraced in such call shall be transacted during such special session.
Now there are a number of questions that arise from this “State Law”
1. Has Mrs. Vanzant, been given by a 2/3 majority vote, authority to call a special meeting of the Commission?
2. What constituted an “emergency” that justified a special meeting being called just days after the regular Commission meeting on the 18th of July?
3. The notice clearly stated that the purpose of the called meeting was to “set a tax rate” and “approve a budget”. The law specifically states “no other business but that embraced in such call shall be transacted during such special session”, yet that was not the business that was conducted. A budget had already been adopted for the county and a tax rate had already been set. Since neither of these previous actions was rescinded this “special emergency called meeting” involved making amendments to the budget adopted on 18 July 2011. Money was taken out and money was put into the budget.
How easily those opposed to Constitutional rights and transparency in government ignore the laws even when right under their noses.
DAW
It would come as no surprise that if Mr Barrett "applied" to address the Board of Commissioners at the next meeting he would be allowed to speak. Vanzant and the whole bunch of 'em know they were in the wrong by not allowing Barrett to speak at the last meeting. This would be done to make amends and try to cover up what happened last time. They pull the wool over no one's eyes.
DAW How are you aware Mr Barrett has applied to speak at the next commission meeting?
5:34,
It is hard to respond to someone that acts like a child without stooping to their level, so I will not lower myself that far to respond to you.
6:14,
There is no conspiracy in this county against Allen Barrett. The reason he did not get to speak has been listed on here and has been proven by the law. The reason he will get to speak at the next meeting is because he has a right to do so by meeting the proper criteria. I am sure that his lawyer would tell him the same thing. When I was getting the documentation and the law on all of this I was told that he had requested to speak and would be allowed to do so.
It really bothers me how some of you will argue against anything that people in our county government do. I can't understand what would want to make you act this way. All I know is that I have spoken with two different lawyers that have told me I interpreted the law in the right way and the county was correct. I am sorry that it has hurt your feelings, but I am not going to talk about the subject anymore. Once you are proven wrong you get personal and nasty. I don't want to be involved in that kind of debate.
DAW
DAW
Once again, I thank you for setting the record straight.
5:56
Are you not enabling strife and troublemaking? I think so.
I have always been told, long before Barrett, that the public does not have to be allowed to speak at a called meeting. The meeting is strictly for the purpose listed and nothing else including public speaking.
6:48
EXACTLY!
what is verbally told and what is in writing are two different things.
Alright, let's clear a couple of things up. For once I have to admit, Allen, I think that they were right. Even if you were speaking about what was on the Agenda for the special meeting, they don't have to allow you to speak. If all that was on the planned Agenda, was what was published, and you being allowed to speak was not part of that plan, then by the law, they did not have to let you speak. So take the lump they dealt and use it to go forward into this next meeting where you have been allowed to speak. Just remember, be calm. Don't give the sons of a
$&**&% the satisfaction.
I'm still waiting for someone to show the law that specifically prohibits a person from speaking at a called meeting or that says a person must be on the agenda and listed in the paper with the announcement of the meeting and its agenda.
So far the law that has been shown has not done either of these things.
People have given their ideas from both sides but until I see the specific wording I'll wait to make up my mind.
11:17 you are on the money.
But as has been shown only bits and pieces of the law are followed any way. arbitrary rule seems to prevail.
Why was the budget not posted in the paper if the rules are to be adhered to so adamantly?
Why is it some laws are added to only in opposition of a citizens speech?
The law has nothing to do with it or WAB would have been allowed to speak. It has been stated on here multiple times that the commission did not want WAB to speak because he might have said something that would have hurt the policy makers feelings.
But this also concerns me from WAB's post if the rules are to be strictly adhered to.
Now there are a number of questions that arise from this “State Law”
1. Has Mrs. Vanzant, been given by a 2/3 majority vote, authority to call a special meeting of the Commission?
2. What constituted an “emergency” that justified a special meeting being called just days after the regular Commission meeting on the 18th of July?
3. The notice clearly stated that the purpose of the called meeting was to “set a tax rate” and “approve a budget”. The law specifically states “no other business but that embraced in such call shall be transacted during such special session”, yet that was not the business that was conducted. A budget had already been adopted for the county and a tax rate had already been set. Since neither of these previous actions was rescinded this “special emergency called meeting” involved making amendments to the budget adopted on 18 July 2011. Money was taken out and money was put into the budget.
When did WAB apply to meet at this next commissioners meeting?
11:17 and 11:56 are right on the spot.
I would love to see some answers to 11:56 questions in fact I am still waiting to see the law that specifically states no one can speak at a called meeting unless they were on the agenda published in the newspaper.
At this point I believe the county executive decided she didn't want any hard questions at the commission meeting, just like at the public meeting on the budget, then she went looking for an excuse to justify her decision. At this point I'd be very surprised if she even contacted the county attorney before sending me the letter of rejection otherwise there would have been more than just an un-named TCA referred to in that letter. It's a shame but this seems to be the normal way things are usually dealt with by this woman.
wab
Give it up. You have spoken at lots of meetings. Given the choice to let you get up and start mouthing, I would have said no more than once.
Also, you ought to get over the fact that Mrs. Vanzant was re-elected in spite of the efforts of some to smear and trash her. Thank God the people of Giles County saw through that.
3:24 shows how the reason for WAB's refusal to be allowed to speak was a personal decision based on hatred for the man as opposed to making decisions based on the law.
3:29
Wrong. If Mrs. Vanzant hates barrett, it pales in comparison(my opinion) with his resentment toward her and the 7th District Commissioners.
How on earth can you defend that man?
3;29,
You should keep your mouth shut. You seem less stupid that way. Barrett has proven in the last two days that it is impossible for him to admit he is wrong. Clearly he is wrong on this one. He loses in court and still thinks he is right. Giles County definitely doesn't need someone so unreasonable and unwilling to listen in any elected office. Sorry Barrett, I will no longer give credit to anything you say.
Has Mrs. Vanzant been running around the county calling barrett all sorts of names and making accusations about his character? No. Has he done her that way? Yes.
3:39 you talk about "unreasonable and unwilling to listen" no one is worse than vanzant when it's someone saying things she don't like, and usually that's the truth.
3:38, 3:39 &3:41 Even when the laws are posted and you can read them with your own eyes you choose to defend wrong doings.
4:42
It is my opinion that what you guys are doing is wrong. Having said that, I sincerely believe that those such as yourself are the true enablers of that wrong as well as strife and troublemaking.
6:18 Because we believe the laws are for every ones benefit and not such a select few you continue to support the side of wrong because of your bias against certain individuals.
3:41 Yes, indeed Mrs Vanzant has been making public comments about Allen Barrett. Heard them myself.
I also heard her call him a SOB among other things and none were spelled out. I was shocked not that she called him names but some of the language she used.
Mrs. Vanzant:
Looks like barrett and the enablers of strife and trouble are after you again. I'm so sorry. Perhaps they think you are going to run for county exec again, and they want to start destroyoing you now? Who knows. But don't feel bad; this gives a few others some time off from their attacks. Amnd after all, they think they know best how our county should be run.
God bless you and Giles County.
6:41 AM So are you acknowledging Mrs Vanzant does read this blog - thought so.
Oh no the oppressors of civil liberty have their little cheerleader up early this morning.
Again all this is about is barretts hate, hate, hate!!!
7:31
I don't know what Mrs. Vanzant reads, so your argument is silly. Why don't you stop being an enabler of hatred and strife? You might find it refreshing.
Does anyone know what time it is? Does anyone really care?
to 11:56
If so I can't imagine why,
we all got time enough to cry
9:19 I wasn't arguing, just askin'.
barrett
You must be afraid Mrs. Vanzant is going to run again; is that why you are on this crusade to destroy her? You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I'm sure pride and arrogance would prevent that.
With what Barrett has put himself through in Giles county I dont think he is afraid of too much, but that is your fear isnt it?
to the 8:45 enabler
No, what I fear is that he won't be moving.
10:48 Then go get some anti-anxiety pills or something 'cos he ain't movin'.
10:48 he said he would sell you his house and you can get him right out of here. Put your money where your mouth is. He has set a price.
Better yet why don't you start passing the hat around since everyone in this county thinks he is a joke and can't wait to get him out of here. I bet with all the influential friends you have in our local government that the county Government or City of Pulaski would be happy to arrange a fund raiser. I bet they would even get a band and sell beer up on the square to help raise the money.
So work toward alleviating your fears and make him stand behind the statements he made. Or are you going to let this Golden Opportunity pass you by?
Not that you will ever exert the energy but I bet you will find that outside a small little circle not as many people will be putting money in that hat as you expect. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
2:58 or scared teacher
that sounds like a "mom, johnny just pulled my hair" post, childish
to the 2:58 enabler of strife and troublemaking
Why would I want his house? I have one of my own. I had heard some loose talk (not my words) that barrett may be leasing the house from Mr. McAlister eventually. I'm sure that's just idle talk, but thought I would throw it in.
3:20 you want him to leave you have the opportunity. does not matter that you have a house. no one said you needed a place to stay. your fear is that he is not going to move and you have a chance to make it happen so make it happen or quit whining. Give the house away, show your a good person and give it to the boys and girls club or some other worthy charity that would benefit this area. But you would rather cry about WAB living here than take action when he has given you such an easy way to make him exit this county. And I doubt McAlister will ever own WAB's house or anything else of WAB's.
3:20 your all about loose talk and spreading others words. They call that gossip, maybe this came from one of your friends as you all gathered around the wash tub, scrubbing your laundry by the crick.
5:10 and 5:13
For the benefit of Giles County, YOU BET that I along with many many people want him to leave...the sooner the better.
How much money would you like to place on your wager about the house?
It's the condescending and haughty attitudes of you enablers that trouble me most. How dare you to imply that we wash our laundry by the "crick"! Who do you think you are anyway? Oh, I forgot, that's how you enablers treat those who don't appreciate or understand your levels of intelligence. After all, you guys know what's best for us here anyhow. I forgot that.
Did anyone notice Janet Vanzant's letter had a letter head?
Something good needs to be said on all blogs.
I'll place as much money on that bet as you put up in purchasing WAB's house. And yes I am making fun of your gossip. I know where I am and where I grew up which is right here in Giles County.
That is nice that official letter head is being used to transact business out of government offices I just don't think it is a requirement for invoices to be paid.
1:24
As I said, why would I want to purchase that house? I have a nice place of my own. Why don't you buy it? Your argument is so ridiculous.
Would save the county money if the letterhead from the county executive's office only stated 'from the office of county executive' and left off the individual's name then it could be used for the next elected executive. As it is, when Vanzant leaves she can only take it with her and use it for toilet paper.
7:23
Why don't you submit the required paperwork and get on the agenda for the next meeting and speak on this issue? Toilet paper? What an idea. I'm sure Mrs. Vanzant and the Commission will take that under advisement.
How do you submit the required paper work and get on the agenda?
Maybe I'm reading some of the thread wrong, but I thought Barrett did that and didn't get on the agenda.
I read somewhere I believe it was DAW's post that Barrett was on the next agenda and wondered when he submitted this request. How does he know what they will be talking about at next meeting?
1:42 I simply gave you a solution to your problem. you stated many many people want him to leave so be a leader and get all those people to throw in a few bucks and get him out of here. Certainly this would be a minor price to pay to be a hero to all and chase the troublemaker out of town. And as I stated before Give the house away, show your a good person and give it to the boys and girls club or some other worthy charity that would benefit this area, perhaps your church. Did it not occur to you that you do not have to live in the house but you could be a good example by putting your money where your mouth is and perform a good deed.
I bet if you can make it happen the governing body will even throw you a parade. Maybe even name an official day after you. I could see an official Enabler Day in Giles County.
9:39,
The next meeting is a regular scheduled meeting. The rules are different for getting to speak at those. As long as his request is in 5 days before the meeting he can speak. This was all explained in detail in the last topic.
11:44
I have another idea. Why doesn't barrett donate the house to a club? He could at least declare it as a deduction on his income taxes.
Why do you just keep on enabling strife? patio
I imagine it is the same reason you don't donate yours. You can take the same deductions he can and there are probably as many or more people here in Giles County that would celebrate if you left.
This is based solely on your posts.
4:21
Look, I already told you I have a nice home and acreage out in the county. What is so difficult to understand about that? Besides, I'm not the one who is supposedly moving and nobody I know of is trying to sue me.
Please stop with the enabling.
4:33 You are the one wanting Barrett to move, so he said he would sale you his house.
What makes you think he is moving? Do you know something the rest of us don't. Us means anybody else on this blog that don't know.
4:52
You bet I want him to move...the sooner the better. So what? That doesn't mean I want his house. Why don't you buy it and bid him a speedy farewell? Perhaps then you will not feel a need to keep stirring a pot that's never going to boil.
So you do not want him to leave bad enough to put your money where your mouth is? Is that it 8:03?
1:28
I think you ought to get more sleep instead of staying up til the wee hours of the morning spewing venom.
What can I say to make you understand that I have a place of my own? It's really simple. I own a home. I don't need another one.
I suppose you will ask me again about buying that house. How foolish can you be?
You really should stop being an enabler of strife.
1:28 Obviously they dont have the money to buy WAB out. A simpler solution would be to take him off the tax rolls.
8:09 no need to get all testy, just a solution to your problem. But I think you would be lost if WAB left. No one to complain about. Before you protest and say you want him to leave all you have to do is buy is house. Then you can complain no more.
1:21
Obviously, you don't understand the simplest language. I give up.
Then complain about WAB no more.
6:23
Then enable his behavior no more.
I think he is doing a lot of good for the community. A lot more people are aware of the business as usual because of him. So buy his house or live with it.
8:32
Why do either? Just don't let him get away with causing trouble. It would help if the enablers would stop helping.
9:55 It boils down to the fact that I agree with a lot of what WAB works toward. I agree with nothing you have posted and some nice intelligent conversations could take place on this blog if you were not so bitter against WAB or against a person's constitutional rights. If you had posted one fact or proof of any statement you have made I might look at you differently. All I can say is every one has it right when they refer to you as the enabler. Try as you might to shake the title and label others with it; it will always be yours. So if you can't afford to buy his house learn to live with it.
1:13
Looks like it's going be me and you going at it. That's fine. And I don't care how you look at me. It's funny that you call me an enabler (a lie) when in reality it is YOU and maybe a couple of others who are the true enablers.
You say I am bitter against barrett? There are a LOT of people upset with that man. After all, just look at the trouble and financial burden he has cost this county. The latter of the two affects us all as taxpayers. Think.
You are still on this kick about the the barrett house. What a laugher.
Stop being an enabler. I never was.
If the person that kept wanting Barrett to move would stop and think. Barrett said he would sale his house to you and move if you wanted to buy it. That is why the person told you to buy it. You are being silly about crying you have a nice house. You could have 10 houses for all I care, buy WAB's are stop telling him to move.
1:13 am post: Great post.
1:13,
How intelligent are you to be arguing with the Enabler all the time? You are no different. Peas in a pod. Get used to the fact that you offer nothing intelligent to this blog either. Each of you feel you have to get the last word in and it makes you seem more and more stupid the farther you take it.
11:13 Good post. So true.
The true enablers are the ones who keep trying to stir up needless trouble. Ironically, the source of most of the trouble is coming from a politically impotent and quarrelsome man who started that lie to begin with.
The true enablers and troublemakers are the ones that wish to violate a man's Constitutional rights, enforce arbitrary rule, distort written laws or make them up completely to justify their bigotry towards citizens they personally do not like, government officials that assault citizens and deny them their rights, and those that defend them. Oh and go against the vote of the commission to push items that have failed into the budget. And those that do not question, but go right along with those who do wrong even when the evidence is presented.
1:57
Wrong. The true enablers are those who follow after a very quarrelsome and politically impotent man and often times do his dirty work in keeping something stirred up. They are the ones who are the enablers of strife and trouble. He starts it and they enable and promote it. The amazing thing is that I don't think most of them (all two or three at the most) even realize that. They have (my opinion) bought into the hate and jealousy way of thinking. It's sad.
One question to 3:21 are you willing to say that the things 1:57 listed did not happen?
1. That a man's Constitutional rights were not violated.
2. That some enforce arbitrary rule, distort written laws or make them up completely to justify their bigotry towards citizens they personally do not like.
3. That a government officials that assaulted a citizen and denied them their rights.
4. That the vote of the commission wasn't changed to push items, that had been deleted from the budget, put back into the budget.
It's really a simple question did these things happen or not?
3:21 Lady we follow the law and the Constitution not arbitrary law made up by elected officials that choose to abuse their power. They will be challenged until the end of time. If Barrett falls their will be some one else to take his place. If we, the ones you try to scoff at, choose to believe in what made this country great and fight those whose ideologies resemble more of a dictatorship and a totalitarian government than representing every citizen and fulfilling their oath to protect every one's Constitutional rights so be it. You have chosen the side of bigotry and we choose the side of Constitutional Rights and equal protection for every one. We even choose to protect your right to be a bigot if that is how you choose to continue your life.
So are you or are you not going to buy his house?
Your rights were not violated. You are just too ignorant to realize it. How does you people feel knowing that you are despised in Giles County. How does it feel to know that your words carry no weight except for in your own little circle of troublemakers and friends that will never be elected to a public office. I wonder how politicians that would probably be good for an office feel about losing because they has Barrett backing them. I wonder how many people dislike Barrett even more because they know he is costing the county money with rediculous lawsuits. Crybabies to the core. You will never be happy with anything. Barrett needs to quit thinking that he has the right of a commissioner. He LOST. He lost by a landslide. Where is the integrity? When will he see that nobody cares what he thinks?
I'm not for Barrett, but where is your integrity? You are sounding awful.
I understand you want to take up for Mrs. Vanzant, but you sound like you Barrett has done something to you and you are very angry.
You sound as bad as Barrett. Do you really want to be like him?
4:50 Please tell me you are not that stupid. How maqny times do you need to be told that I have no interest whatsoever in the barrett/ McAlister house.
5:29
Excellent post.
Prove it belongs to McAlister.
Then people might believe what you say.
7:53
Who said the house belonged to Mr. McAlister...yet?
I thought the enabler kept saying it did. Didn't she say WAB was leasing it from McAlister?
Yet would mean he don't own it yet and can't keep it from being sold to the enabler. lol
10:57
The true enablers are those who get their marching orders from the chief troublemaker. They (all two or three of them at most) do their level best to keep something stirred up. Those are the true enablers of strife and troublemaking.
You are right 7:42, there are only about 2 or 3 of those cheerleaders on here. They make themselves sound very stupid defending him. It really is sad that they are puppets on a string.
Why not get a blog vote of the number of people who like Mr. Barrett trying to help the county? I will start, only vote once. That way we will know if it is more than one or two.Number 1
I am 2.
What a laugh. There are only two, and that could be the same person, perhaps even barrett himself. LOL.
Seems the poll was only open 36 minutes, par for the enabler.
10:28
The poll was started by one of the enablers of strife and troublemaking.
I support Barrett, but I don't get marching orders from anyone.
7:42 do you get marching orders from Janet?
11:
15
Stop drinking the kool-aid. Then you will really begin to think for yourself as I do.
I am confounded that anyone could support that guy. Just step back and look at what he does and what he says.
It ain't about supporting him because he is Barrett like you hate him because he is Barrett it's a matter of supporting the facts he has put on here instead of only opinions you put on. I just read in the other part a whole bunch of things he put on here from the TCA and CTAS that proved DAW didn't know what he was talking about then you turn right and say everything Barrett put on here was wrong but not a single word of evidence or proof he was wrong. I don't know if ebverything Barrett puts on here is right but so far I ain't found nothing that he put on here was wrong. I don't know about you cause you only put your opinion and nothing that can be checked out.
1:26
But how can you support him in the way he treats his fellow human beings?
I support him, because like him, I do not want to be a doormat for local,state or federal government.
I'm with you 3:39
RS says
Count me as a supporter of Barrett.
I wonder how many of you so-called supporters are the same person...possibly even barrett?
I read barrett's letter to the editor in this week's paper, and I must say that, in my opinion, he has reached an all-time low in his sleazy and condescending attacks, Dan Watson being the victim. Read that letter and still claim to support such viciousness. Would you support him were he attacking one of your family members or friends like that?
wab and enablers of strife
Please read Romans 12: 9-21.
8:02 are you saying Dan Watson ain't an honorable man cause that's all I read Barrett calling him in his letter. What have you got against Watson the same thing you have against Barrett?
I read Barrett's letter and laughed harder than at anything I've read in the paper for a long time. I have to say it had all the entertainment that is missing from Mr. Watson's articles.
Dan Watson's articles are entertaining. He doesn't have to make Barrett look bad, because Barrett is very good at doing that himself. What Watson wrote was hilarious and very true. You just have to deal with it.
I quit reading Watson' piece because I found it silly. Then someone posted something on the blog about it. So I looked up the old paper to read it.
Still not my kind of reading.
Barrett's letter to the editor this week was a silly as Watson's article.
Watson's articles are pretty smart. Most of the people that follow Barrett wouldn't understand them.
9:07
Please tell me you are not that stupid. Do you not understand that barrett was slapping Dan Watson's face by his condescending remarks that he (Watson)is an honorable man? Please tell me you are smarter than this.
Let me tell you this. Dan Watson IS an honorable man, and I believe barrett would be wise to become one himself.
Watson is a paid employee of the county spouting propaganda for the one who gave him his $40,000.00 a year job that has no real duties.
He also was not truthful in his article saying that he had a letter from someone else that was really written by him. If he didn't write it the rules for letters to the paper was broke.
Two politicians working for the paper are three to many.
He wasn't spouting propaganda, he was telling the truth. I am sorry that everytime there is one person in the county that stirs up trouble, the one person happens to be Allen Barrett. It is about time that folks start calling him out. You all just get so upset when someone makes you look like the fools you are.
What truth was Watson telling all I read was a bunch of jumble.
He said that only one man was complaining of his constitutional rights being broken. Barrett took it that he was talking about him.
More than one complained to the newspaper about Watson's writing. Watson was wrong in assuming it was only one person.
Who cares? Watson's writing is smart and true. Those that don't want to have their name thrown around shouldn't stir up trouble. Barrett has been stirring up trouble in this county since I was a kid. Who is he trying to fool on this blog?
Obviously you're still a kid 8:18
and not a very truthful one at that.
Watson's article this week was interesting. Looking forward for the rest next week. The others was silly.
Hope he does more like this week.
8:13
But the real question is whether or not Mark Antony (aka barrett) will be back in the paper calling Mr. Watson and honorable man.
Anybody can write a letter to the paper just have to sign their name and address. Barrett does that on this blog as well as the paper.
Me and 9:07 are cowards and want sign ours.
9:31
Wrong. Some people don't have such a strong ego as to want their name out there all the time. Others have valid reasons why they cannot sign their names.
Nope you two are just cowards.
Just don't want anyone to know who you are, also like me.
Might be embrassing to some of our relatives.
Some do not want anyone to know how many times they post.
6:09
My relatives are aware that I take a stand against troublemaking, and they have no problem with it whatsoever. But because I post anonymously does not make me a coward. No, it makes me wise in view of my circumstances.
Jim Culpepper's letter to Editor this week wins top prize.
Isn't he one of the CAVE people? Just asking.
Yes he is. He gets about as much respect as Barrett. Pretty close to 0. All those blowhards that are never happy about anything. Laughable.
I had noticed how often and how negative he and another one have been in the letters section of the paper. Both seem to be members of CAVE.
It would be laughable were it not so pathetic.
6:54 When referring to "amother one" are you meaning the man who writes frequently about taxes, social security and medicare?
They are CAVE people.
I think the enabler was born in a CAVE on another planet.
The enabler wasn't born it was hatched.
4:38
The true enablers of troublemaking and strife ARE members or at least close supporters of CAVE.
Is it true that CAVE stands for Citizens Against Vanzant's Evil?
10:43
No, CAVE stands for Citizens Against Virtually Everything. You were just misinformed. Glad I could clear that up for you.
Not in my book 1:53 Citizens Against Vanzant's Evils it the right term
Hey Enabler Jr. at 6:53, just because you have personal problems with Mrs. Vanzant that are bred from jealousy of her and the position she holds doesn't make her evil.
6:53
Wrong again. CAVE stands for Citizens Against Vietually Everything. Are you a member of this "elite" but politically impotent group?
8:29 Looks like if you are going to make up cute stuff you would at least learn how to spell it.
9:18
I see the typo in Virtually, but you knew it was merely a typing error, didn't you? So who is trying to be cute?
CAVE stands for exactly what I said it did. I'm just trying to educate you so you will appear less ignorant and combative.
Glad you can tell what I know and don't know now if you would only apply some of that great mind reading ability to your self everyone would benefit, but wait how do you read what isn't there? Guess you'll have to continue to tell everyone else what they know and don't know, what they think and don't think.
10:02
Looks like it's you and me again. That's cool. I'll ne your huckleberry.
I am a bit frustrated that you still seem as ignorant and combative as before. My efforts were in vain; why am I not surprised?
Ok, your turn. Let's go.
The enabler had the last post. Know that made her/him happy.
9:12
Yes, and that enabler was you. Give it a rest.
Is there anything to discuss?
10:09 When you have something to discuss I'm sure someone will discuss it with you.
You've got yet to discuss anything just whine.
Why is it you think others need to give it a rest, you never will.
11:55
Well, stop the name-calling and I won't say a word.
Oh Happy Day.
Does the enabler check the post this far down?
8:05 I see you checked. And the laughable thing about that is the fact that you are one of the enablers who keeps promoting the lie barrett told. Give it up, and I won't mention the lie anymore.
Post a Comment
<< Home