The Truth Is The Truth Regardless Of Who Tells It
posted by Allen Barrett | 2:18 PM
Giles Free Speech Zone
The purpose of the "Giles Free Speech Zone" is to identify problems of concern to the people of Giles County, to discuss them in a gentlemanly and civil manner, while referring to the facts and giving evidence to back up whatever claims are made, making logical arguments that avoid any use of fallacy, and, hopefully, to come together in agreement, and find a positive solution to the problem at hand. Help make a difference! Email "mcpeters@usit.net" to suggest topics or make private comments.
Contributors
- Tennessee Ranked Third In The Nation For Corruptio...
- Congratulations To All Participants In The Election.
- OK, So I Lost!
- WATER LINE COMPLETION IN DOUBT
- What I Will Do If Elected To Serve The People OF T...
- Why Has The County Executive Been Secretly Giving ...
- Giles County Executive Candidates Appearance On WLX
- News From The County Legislative Body That Met Thi...
- Has The Ball Been Dropped On Development Of The Wa...
- Interesting Information From The E-911 Board Meeti...
83 Comments:
Scratching my head over the wording of this thread.
Hell, I'm scratching my head because I believe Allen Barrett has finally gone off the deep end.turnap spirit
I would expect something this tacky from such a sore loser.
Aint it funny what the chidren say.
I would expect something this tacky from such a stupid enabler.
Y'all need a new spokesperson!
How many votes did Vanzant get above Stokes?
7:44 I speak for myself. Can't you do the same?
Let's discuss something that is germane to all of us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KakxXN5Z-XI
These muslims are on thw warpath and more are coming to the USA as they pour through our southern boarder to join those who are already here.
We don't need immigration reform laws, we just need to enforce they ones already on the books.
Yes you are right but how do we go about changing laws ...we the people must stand united on these issues put our personal feelings aside
9:02 I think I read that Vanzant got 140 more votes than Stowe. If Danny Lindsey hadn't been such a arrogant person, he would have seen the writing on the wall, dropped out and thrown his support to Stowe. Stowe was obviously the most qualified candidate and could have beaten Vanzant in a head to head contest. Everybody that knew Lindsey said he didn't stand a chance, but he had people inside the power structure propping him up and stroking his ego. That's the way incompetent incumbents like Vanzant get reelected, three way races.
Concerning the early vote totals being announced before the polls closed, it is certainly something that needs to be looked into. It may not have made a difference in Chip Richardson's race , but in the county executive race, 140 votes was not a comfortable lead for Vanzant. It's rotten that things like this happen, but what's even more rotten is that things like this happen and no one is brave enough to blow the whistle on the wrong doers. I guess that makes them enablers.
There are some that have tried to tell what was happening but they are labeled as troublemakers and people are brainwashed into not listening to them. Barrett has told on this blog and in speeches where Vanzant was present that she was a liar and a thief and he provided the evidence but it don't matter cause the good cowards outnumber those who will do something. The good cowards sit back and complain then are silent when Barrett or someone like him does what's needed. This place has become a damn cesspool of crookedness and everyone knows it but they don't want to be labeled a troublemaker so they just turn their heads and let it go.
If anyone tried to telthere are those that say they are Barrett's buddies. Since they can't think for themselves and have to listen to Vanzant they think others can't think for themselves.
I'm with te ones want something done about the border, but what can we do it's just like Giles County with Vanzant's relatives and friends, there are to many Democrat that can't see what the president is doing to our country.
When are you Barrettites going to listen. When WAB speaks, only a handful of sheep listen.
3:25 Look at the votes more people voted against Vanzant than voted for her.
Have you listen to the chili cook off video? A lot of people did and Harwell lost.
And you are giving WAB credit for that?
WAB finished 5th......out of 5!
you mean in last place?.....again?
Well look at obama he won two elections. You probably voted for his dumbass too since he's just like you.
6:51 No, I'm giving cg and vanzant both credit for that.
7:01 Someone had to loose.
7:37 I think you have his/her number.
6:51 No, I'm giving cg and vanzant both credit for that.
7:01 Someone had to loose.
7:37 I think you have his/her number.
9:21 You are right about CG almost getting Mrs. Vanzant beat. I kept telling them he as hurting her. He never said anyting that would help her. All he did was make people mad and they turned against Mrs. Vanzant and Terry Harwell. CG's not being for Tommy Campbell helped him get elected.
A sad thing when people you think are your friends hurt you more than help.
It's a sad thing when people are elected or not elected by who is supporting them or not supporting them instead of looking at their record and lives to see if they have any qualifications of character for such a job.
I'm not sad at all with the election results.
How can the city council of Pulaski knowingly violate the law when passing the pseudoephedrine ordinance in April, and now state they have to repeal it because if they try to enforce it they are open to litigation? Does this mean they were not enforcing existing ordinances? Does this mean that our city council passed unconstitutional ordinances? And what new information came up that they do not have the absolute power they claimed when passing unconstitutional ordinances?
Maybe the city council had one of their churches vote on whether to repeal the ordinance.
12:55 As a life long Giles County resident, I must say I am embarrassed to think that the people of this beautiful county are so stupid that they would re-elect a liar like Janet Vanzant over a man like Graham Stowe. Stupid, stupid, stupid. And as Ron White says, "You can't fix STUPID." What a shame.
Remember how cg and some others laughed at Mr. Barrett when he told them that the city did not have the power to pass and enforce such a stupid law. It seems that Barrett is right about a lot of things that others are too stupid to understand so they end up having to undo it later.That's what you get when everything is run by just a couple of families that have been inbred too close.
I wish Barrett would run for Mayor.
Maybe we should hold a peaceful protest and demand jv resignation if she were a true lady she would at least have some shame about her crookedness oh never mind it doesnt matter the election was a joke everyone had high hopes for change now everyone is hope is hopeless once again !!#! Im sure Mr Lindsy will be rewarded for his part in this saga i hope someone proves the election a farce
Id vote for Barrett
3:45 I'm not sad wih the election results either. Harwell got beat.
Mr. Barrett, you are laying down on your job. You support JB Smith. You haven't done your usual thorough investigation. Is it because you don't want to see how wrong you are? People are keeping their mouths shut out of fear and loathing, but if you really dig, you'll find out how his personal actions have cost the school system well over a million dollars in settlements that continue to this day. So many people out in public know about it, I can't believe you haven't dug it up.
The radio said the new state law which went into effect July 1 stripped Pulaski and eleven other cities of their right to enforce such ordinances.
The Federal Government through through the FDA determines which medications and drugs are legal to sell and under what circumstance not the local yokels who think they know everything. Barrett was noir the only one who told them they couldn't do it.
Why is it Barrett's job to dig up anything on JB Smith?
If you got something then tell it or shut up but you won't do that you'll whine and poop your pants wanting somebody else to do all the work and take all the heat while you sit back and join in the complaining .
Hell, if I was Barrett I'd tell ever one of you lazy bastards to go to hell. You use him for your dirty work and stuff you to cowardly to do then when he ask for your help it's to bad so sad.
I am a life long resident of Giles County and I have heard things on JB Smith but has anyone actually seen him in action. Unlike so many others that have been caught. People are just jealous of him and how dignified he is. He has done more to improve this county in a few weeks than the Directors have done since they were decided upon by the board. Just set back and wait, our county is going places and I don't mean down in numbers, but up. That is if all schools will quit thinking as individual schools and think as one big community.
The radio got it wrong. The city had been told by MTAS and the Attorney General state law did not give them the power pass such ordinances. It was specifically forbidden. This was before the General Assembly met. The city council stated they did not care if they had the authority or not and the city of Pulaski needed this ordinance. They then took the stance they would leave the ordinance because they were sure the General Assembly would make pseudoephedrine products prescription only. They didn't and the local news is covering up the city councils breach of oath of office by passing such ordinances and putting the city at risk of unnecessary litigation.
12:17 That is as wrong of a statement as any I have ever heard.
Some City Counci members did state that they thought that this was oversetepping their authority. The ordinance was passed at the urging of local law enforecement because they wanted to push the state to take some form of action.
Their is a huge difference.
Council and
There is a huge difference. My mistake.
Sounds like the little girl is back. "I know something you don't know." yaya yayaya
Call me what you want. I'm just trying to set the record straight.
yaya yaya yaya
7:07
Did the ordinance get passed when they knew they did not have authority? Yes it did plain and simple. Did they take an oath to protect the law or to pass ordinances "at the urging of local law enforcement because they wanted to push the state to take some form of action"?
Even if they did act for the reasons you state, when they knowingly passed the ordinances without proper authority they breached their oaths, plain and simple. They needlessly exposed the city of Pulaski to liability and should be removed from office. So 7:07 show me proof of what I write on the subject that is wrong. And you better go back and read the reports and quotes from the Mayor and Aldermen that appeared in the local news.
And since you did not question the rest of my 12:17 post I can assume you agree. The city received an MTAS opinion telling them not to take the action. They then requested the Attorney General's Opinion telling the public they would wait to act until they received the answer but passed the ordinance anyway. After receiving the Attorney's Opinion that outlined the laws forbidding them from taking such actions, they announced in the local news they were going to leave the ordinance because the General Assembly was looking at the issue and would make the products available by prescription only. They did not and the city council left the ordinance in place until now. Apparently they passed an ordinance they were not enforcing from what was reported in the news. "Alderman Vicky Harwell echoed the sentiment, saying the city would open itself up to litigation if it tried to enforce the ordinance." That statement shows there are existing ordinances that were not being enforced. Sort of like the Alderman who stated in a council meeting they would not follow the law regulating cell phones in meetings because of their family.
10:27 I agree wholeheartedly with your posts regarding the resolution on the selling of pseudoephedrine in Giles county. However, that resolution has been in effect in Giles county since October 2013 with a notice to its effect posted at the Wal Mart pharmacy. So the city could have been sued for the past several months. What gets to me though is why the time and money was spent on this when Federal law says the resolution could not be passed. Many people pointed this out on this very blog when it happened. So yes, I agree the city aldermen should be voted out, including the city mayor.
1:17 The ordinance was only for the city of Pulaski and did not apply to anywhere else in Giles County.
11:07 How did you set the record straight? You told us nothing exceot you kow something we don't know.
Maybe 9:26 popped off when the little girl wasn't about his post.
Hey pseudoephedrinites ! Dont forget to sign one of those forms for the movement to get wine in supermarkets in Giles Co.They have to be turned in soon,then we'd have wine, spirits, meth and other 'happy hour ' stuff available to make Giles into Party County!!
1:29 OK so city of Pulaski, big deal. Still they were wrong. What about that?
Banter back and forth yet once again our local gov. Believe they are above the law.Why do they think this way,because some people dont want to believe the truth and then they are to coward to stand up for the truth. What should be done before our city and county go broke replace every one of them
How do you correlate meth, an illegal substance, to wine a legally regulated product. I don't follow the logic, but more like illogic of your correlation. Maybe we should throw sugar, caffeine, and anything else that causes chemical reactions in the body, or causes addiction. Lets not forget all those legally subscribed pills in the mix that have become a plight on our society. If anything I can correlate the abuse of prescription pills to meth manufacturing and consumption before I would correlate it to buying a bottle of wine in a grocery store.
But to the point the city council knew they did not have the authority and chose to pass the ordinance anyway.
3:05 I wrote 10:27 and your attitude towards someone correcting your statements, which were wrong, with no malice intended is pretty pathetic.
2:32 Which is setting the record straight.
10:27 The opinion was not given until the City had already passed the ordinance.
10:27 There is no law against using cell phones in meeting. Computers are a way of life now.
3:15 The City is not broke. It is financially strong. The County on the other hand, has not been fiscally responsible.
3:57 Some of the city council members, including Mayor 1, did not know that the City did not have the authority.
I applaude the city for sparking the conversation and action.
When did The Ordinance pass? Wasn't it October or November 2013.
You want to stick to that statement 4:20 because my 4:28 post conflicts greatly with the claims you make.
And didn't hoover address the board that the personal use of cell phones by board members was against the law while meetings were in session because members were using their cell phones?
Don't worry about answering because I know it will not be based on any fact or anything verifiable.
1st part
June 3, 2013
Re: Ability of city to regulate sales of products containing ephedrine
The question has been raised of whether a city may regulate the sale of ephedrine, by requiring a prescription in order to purchase the over the counter drug. Products containing ephedrine are being purchased in large quantities by persons operating illegal methamphetamine labs.
Ephedrine is a non-prescription, over the counter drug which is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Title 21 of the United States Code “National Uniformity for Nonprescription Drugs,” contains the following language, which preempts any local regulation of non-prescription drug products:
no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect any requirement-- (1) that relates to the regulation of a drug that is not subject to the requirements of section 353(b)(1) or 353(f)(1)(A) of this title[this refers to the section governing prescription drugs]; and (2) that is different from or in addition to, or that is otherwise not identical with, a requirement under this chapter, the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.), or the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.).
21 U.S.C.A. § 379r (West)[emphasis added]
To clarify in my 4:45 post I did not mean 4:28 post I meant the following two posts which is the MTAS opinion the city had in hand way before choosing to enact the ordinance.
And nothing good came from the actions of the board in this matter.
It keeps kicking MTAS opinion out. I'll have to split it into three parts.
part 2-
This language means that a city may not impose any regulations on sales of non-prescription drugs, or at least no regulations that differ from the federal regulations imposed by the FDA.
If you review the further language of 21 U.S.C.A. § 379, you will note that a political subdivision may make application to the Secretary of the FDA for permission to impose additional regulations. The Secretary may grant the application if three conditions in subsection (b)(1) are met. Although public health and safety is a concern for which this subsection states such permission may be granted, the measure cannot have an adverse impact on interstate commerce. 21CFR§379(b)(1). I have searched the Federal Register for any record of a successful application for exception to the operation of this regulation, and found nothing. This leads me to conclude that exception to this regulation is rarely, if ever, granted.
part 3-
In my opinion, cities may not impose any additional regulations on the sale of products containing ephedrine, and may not require that persons buying products containing ephedrine have prescriptions. If a city is willing to invest a lot of time and money, an application may be made to the Secretary of the FDA for permission to pass an ordinance containing such a regulation, but I
am very doubtful that such an attempt will be successful.
I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or need further assistance.
Thank you for consulting with MTAS.
Sincerely,
Melissa A. Ashburn Legal Consultant
There is no law about using cell phones during meeting. The question was whether the aldermen were using their cell phones to contact EACH OTHER during meetings, which is in violation of the Sunshine Law. All aldermen denied using their phones to text each other. Andy Hoover simply reminded them that all conversation between members during meetings has to take place openly. The aldermen can still use their phones, as long as they don't text each other.
Mr. Stupid 4:45: It IS NOT against the law to use cell phones during meetings!
Mr. Stupid 4:55 It is not an accurate statement that nothing good came out of passing this ordinance. If one meth lab, and I'm quite certain there were many, had to slow or halt production, then something good came out of this ordinance.
Mr. Stupids: All of you! What have you done lately to help or hurt the city or county?
are you there to serve the public or talk on the phone.
Serve people like you?
The number of Meth Labs increased during the past year that the ban was in effect. Don't believe me ask Jeremy at EMS or Sheriff Helton who was pushing the ban.
Is it true that there's a teacher in our county school system who is using the "F" word in front of his students?
7:21 Do tell who?
Is it against the rules?
What about a rule that allows single pregnant woman teacing our children?
Phones should not be allowed in meetings if there were to be a family emergency im sure they would know where to find them. Why would they be using phone when they should be paying attention to what is going on in the meeting? How many lawsuits have city and county gov. paid out now I here there is one against 911 board . Ignorance is not exemption from the law. We all know whats wrong with our county and city gov
Id like to hear what we can do to change it.Please dont say vote that is a joke .
Only a person living under a rock or trying to cause trouble would not allow cell phones in a meeting. Today's phones are calendars, computers and much more.
Its a common courtesy to turn off your cell phone whether in a meeting, doctor's office or whatever. In fact, many persons chairing a meeting begin by asking people to turn off their phones if they havent already done so by a posted request. As someone else posted, if your family needed you in an emergency they know where you are (or should be).
It's common courtesy to mind your own business!
Mobile devices are important for many reasons. So get off of it! It is not against the law to have a cell phone in a meeting. And I would never turn my phone off in a doctor's office.
I always turn my cell phone off most especially in an important meeting.Its called manners and respect.If you dont know what day it is we are in trouble.Cell phone can also be used deceptively. If it isnt a law it should be in a county meeting maybe that is why some do not have a clue what is going on in the meeting (ie) who is there who is not , what time someone gets there-where did our money go . Sir I have a feeling you would nit follow any rules and we know some officials do not!!
Yea they are important so you can violate the open meetings law. The members were sitting there texting each other you dumbass fool. Do you really think Hoover would have made an issue of it if it hadn't been so damn obvious?
Explain to me how having a cell phone can violate the open meeting law, and tell me how Hoover made an issue of it.
Hoover was asked a specific question regarding members texting each other about how to vote. Any fool knows that this is not legal!
Does any one know the date of the meetings the statements were made by hoover?
I believe that this was discussed in a work session, not an actual meeting.
It is the policy of many doctor's offices that patients turn off cell phones when entering. It is plainly posted. To say you would not turn yours off is just moronic.
How did stopping the sale of pseudo in Pulaski stop any meth production? It is the matter of driving 30 mins in just about any direction to purchase the product and I don't think anyone wishing to produce meth would mind taking such a short trip. I know I didn't. It is just another example of a small amount of power going to the heads of those not accustomed to having any. It goes back to "little man syndrome" that we see so often from those in a position of authority. Most are just trying to balance the scales of having been picked on in school. Pathetic.
Your knowledge of what is going on and your discription of what goes on in your head is what is pathetic!
I may silence my phone in a Doctor's office, but I have NEVER turned it off, and I never will!
You are such a WUS! You probably jumped off of the bridge too?
Isn't it fun to go to the doctor when you feel so bad and head hurting. Setting beside you is someone laughing and talking on their cell phone like there aren't sick people in the room.
Cell phones are good to have, just wish a class on manners came with them.
I'm not sure whether you know this, or not, but you don't have to talk on your cell phone to be able to use it.
5:54 Some people rather talk and laugh real loud on their cell phone rather than text.
My point was manners using the phone around other people not turning them off.
I have a cell phone, but don't talk on it at some places. If I'm at doctors office and an emergence comes up from my family or work they text and I have the phone on vibrate.
I will add it's rather bad when at a meeting or in church and someone is playing with their phone most of the time. They aren't listening and must be playing a game to be on it so much.
It wasn't long ago that a lesson in manners was taught to a cell phone user at a picture show. I hope nobody follows that example but stuff happens when people get fed up.
Cell phones are a good thing and a bad thing. Look at the wrecks have been caused because of texting on their cell.
and their are laws against using them while driving but according to some they will not give up their phones while driving.
Crazy how some of you are so emotionally dependent on your cell phones to provide you with a sense of comfort. I think some who have posted on here have grown too much of an unnatural attachment to their cell phones.
You will have to pry my cell phone from my cold dead hand.
I was at a meeting, not government meeting, but still a meeting eeryone should be listening to. The person beside me kept looking at her phone. I asked if something was wrong. She said, "I'm playing a game." Then she laughed.
Post a Comment
<< Home