...the day you decide to have the testicular fortitude to stand beside your words.

No, really, it's funny to watch you out in public, Mike. You're NOTHING like this. I remember the Fourth District forum just this month, when Don Parnell of all people ended up backing you down when you insisted on trying to carry out your pathetic little political hit job.

So what do you do? Back to the good ol' Net to quote Orwell and act self-important! A winner is you... at least, in your own mind.

But you know what the truly sad part is? You really enjoy this. You actually enjoy being ridiculed, it seems. For you, ANY attention is good attention, isn't it?

Even if it exposes you for who you are - a sad, strange little man who makes Don Quixote look like a reasonable kinda guy.

I'd go on, but what's the point? It's like swatting a housefly with a howitzer anyway: Fun for a little while, but in the end a waste of time and resources.

Yep. A winner is you.

And you are? Just another pseudonymous blogger who screams in the rain calling other pseudonymous bloggers cowards. Is that a double negative or a double entendre?

Pretty incoherent, as usual Justin. BTW, Van de Vate works for the County, not the City.

Glad to know you still care...

Its the type of personal attacks/snark et al that he has done in the past as his digit persona that makes him a coward. He would never say anything in public like he has said on here or the half dozen other websites that he spews forth his hatred of Ragsdale thus, #9 (Mike) = coward.

I think Justin's point is that Mike likes to bash the City administration as well as the County administration.

He's an equal opportunity basher when it comes to Mayors.

I see…If you are not smart enough to reply to the poster…..attack the person. Good plan

You are the decider.

You decide who can speak and who must remain quite. If they get out of line according to you then, "so and so just likes to push it to the limit with his/her/their tirades." Who is the coward oh great decider? Remind me when we elected you decider. I don't recall that.

Rather than offer a defense of Mike Ragsdale you choose to attack those who dare to ask questions. Do you do this because it would be an embarrassment to defend the good Mayor?

How dare they attempt to exercise free speech.

Let's review, only appointed Commissioners, stupid people, car salesmen, conservatives, liberals, Scoobie-dos, and attractive female South Knoxvillians and West Knoxvillians dare to ask questions about the "Emperor who wears no clothes".

Defend the Mayor. Don't tell people they aren't worthy to comment. You are no different than anyone else here.

herb posted here about the swearing in deal.i offered a comment go read it

i aint a lawyer but read it tell me what you think.

Yes, it is there in the T.C.A. Along with a lot of other code. It has been there a long time. No one ever thought of using that in such a cheap way. Until now. Cue Herb.

John Owings has said that there is no law that REQUIRES newly elected Commissioners to be sworn in early. It is up to each individual Commissioner.

That is correct. Bolus did nothing illegal. But it was wrong then and it is wrong now. Sometimes, like this time, there are conflicts in the law that require interpretations.

Does the State Constitution trump the County Charter?

Well sometimes, and sometimes not.

What is going on is a back room behind the scenes deal to get enough of the newly elected Commissioner to agree to be sworn in together as to spread the guilt and blame. If anyone has any doubts I will post some audio and video to prove it.

This is no different than cutting line. Why don't people cut line at the movie theater? Because it is wrong. And you might get in a scuffle if you do.

It sucks. It is the same old stuff. Special people have special rights in this scruffy little town. That is why we have the apathy we have. People just throw up their hands and say "screw it".

But that is exactly what the special people want.

But seriously:

It appears Ragsdale admits to breaking a number of state and county laws. I don't see much in the way of denial with the audit's findings, though there seems to be something of a dig at the Sheriff's office attached at the end (gotta love completely mature and not at all asinine factionalism!).

It bothers me, though, that while the response seems to accept blame on the surface, there's distinct attempts to shunt some of the more serious blame onto the shoulders of other governmental entities (the commission, Sheriff's office, Law Department, etc.) For example: Item 3 (pg 4 and 5 of the PDF) shows that the administration was in violation of TCA 5-8-101, and alleges violation of 5-9-401 (which seems to be disputed by the response).

Instead of accepting the blame in this instance, it looks like a lot of "weasel-wording" is being used to say "Hey, it's okay!" No. Breaking the law is rarely, if ever, okay, and in this instance there's no excuse - to me, anyway.

There's a lot of attempts at explanation, but few if any solutions offered by the audit. As a citizen, I don't want excuses. I want the law to be followed, and anyone found guilty of breaking the law sufficiently punished just as any other person would be.