I will not vote for Tony Anderson because of this

The fact is she lied and Dave was spoon fed what she wanted to portray. At least he had the balls to admit when he was duped....you, not so much!

I wasn't duped by anything. I didn't hear what anyone said from the forum last night. I said the audio was very poor.

What I did say was "I see no reason to doubt Danny's version of what was said or who said it." I still don't.

That's the problem, too many people taking the word of others and not investigating for themselves.

Mr. Rauschkolb and I may not always agree on issues, but I must say I have much respect for the integrity of his post.

That's the problem, too many people taking the word of others and not investigating for themselves.

Danny didn't say anything that I felt warranted "investigating". Honestly, it won't change my vote now and it's doesn't change how I feel about T. Anderson.

The fact is she lied...

This will cost her votes.

Danny didn't say anything that I felt warranted "investigating". Honestly, it won't change my vote now and it's doesn't change how I feel about T. Anderson.

Of course it won't, back to the rumor mill for you.

Of course it won't, back to the rumor mill for you.

LOL! Which rumors might those be?

This will cost her votes.

It should! SMH, if you can't be trusted with the "little"things.....and the crazy part is she didn't even give people the benefit of being smart enough to watch the video to check for themselves. The video sat on the Chamber FB page the while time.

I went and watched the whole forum to see this part because I am FIRMLY AGAINST developing our state parks, because the parks are for nature and preservation. So, it was a big letdown when I watched the video on Facebook which I could BARELY hear...because Tony Anderson never said he wanted to develop a state park at all! He actually seemed to say we need to be careful with the park land.

The whole thing has seemed to boomerang on Meadows, because I got two emails today from park conservation people saying she is being deceptive and reminding of when she tried to put a beach walkover through preserve land for a gated community...which I had forgotten about.

Also what is Cindy Meadows plan on conserving land? Anderson has a platform for environment and conservation. Very clear on his website.

Tony Anderson never said he wanted to develop a state park at all!

ROFLMAO!

No one here said he wanted to develop a State Park either!

ROFLMAO!

No one here said he wanted to develop a State Park either!

This whole thing became a thing because apparently Meadows told some guy that Anderson wanted a road and more development in the state parks! And he doesn't. So Meadows made a mess of it!

Funny that all the Anderson supporters login at the same time every night.

This whole thing became a thing because apparently Meadows told some guy that Anderson wanted a road and more development in the state parks! And he doesn't. So Meadows made a mess of it!

Actually that isn't what you said. I quoted what you said. No one accused him of wanting to build a state park. It became a "thing" because Dave R. didn't check what was actually said and he has apologized for that. Why are you still all over it like flies on ?

Actually that isn't what you said. I quoted what you said. No one accused him of wanting to build a state park. It became a "thing" because Dave R. didn't check what was actually said and he has apologized for that. Why are you still all over it like flies on ?

No, it became a "thing" because she lied.

No, it became a "thing" because she lied.

Your argument isn't with me on this one. I didn't repeat what Ms. Meadows said because I wasn't privy to the conversation.

I said leave state forest alone!

Actually that isn't what you said. I quoted what you said. No one accused him of wanting to build a state park. It became a "thing" because Dave R. didn't check what was actually said and he has apologized for that. Why are you still all over it like flies on ?

So now you're blaming Dave R. for "starting" this because he believed Cindy Meadows? Wow! Just wow!

I agree that many of Meadows' statements shouldn't be taken at face value, but Dave is a friend and ally of Meadows. I don't blame him for feeling betrayed. He made statements about someone else based upon the false statements of a friend and confidante. It's not right to blame the victim for the crimes of the perpetrator. Count me on Rauschkolb's side in this one. The man obviously has moral courage.

So now you're blaming Dave R. for "starting" this because he believed Cindy Meadows? Wow! Just wow!

I agree that many of Meadows' statements shouldn't be taken at face value, but Dave is a friend and ally of Meadows. I don't blame him for feeling betrayed. He made statements about someone else based upon the false statements of a friend and confidante. It's not right to blame the victim for the crimes of the perpetrator. Count me on Rauschkolb's side in this one. The man obviously has moral courage.

Oh My God! How am I blaming Dave R? He OWNED what he said. He apologized for it. I never heard the comment made by Anderson. I said as much 3 times. I didn't repeat what it was I didn't hear Anderson say! I'm not questioning Dave's morals or his courage but you are sure trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

You indicated it was Rauschkolb's fault this became a "thing" because he didn't fact-check Meadows' statement to him against the video. But as soon as he viewed the video, he immediately spoke up.

You indicated it was Rauschkolb's fault this became a "thing" because he didn't fact-check Meadows' statement to him against the video. But as soon as he viewed the video, he immediately spoke up.

Here is what I said

Actually that isn't what you said. I quoted what you said. No one accused him of wanting to build a state park. It became a "thing" because Dave R. didn't check what was actually said and he has apologized for that. Why are you still all over it like flies on ?

Dave R, posted himself on the visioning page and jasper photo shot it and pasted it here that Dave himself said he didn't check what was actually said. That's my fault how? You and Indestructible and jasper made it a thing by saying Meadows lied!!!

So now you're blaming Dave R. for "starting" this because he believed Cindy Meadows? Wow! Just wow!

I agree that many of Meadows' statements shouldn't be taken at face value, but Dave is a friend and ally of Meadows. I don't blame him for feeling betrayed. He made statements about someone else based upon the false statements of a friend and confidante. It's not right to blame the victim for the crimes of the perpetrator. Count me on Rauschkolb's side in this one. The man obviously has moral courage.

I doubt it's anything but an honest mistake and Dave is OK with it. People make Mistakes.

Nice to see some good discussion about actual issues; parking, beach vendors, traffic, Incorporation, etc.

Instead it's like a bunch of 3rd graders fighting over a pokeman card.

The entire Dist. 5 race has become somewhat of a punch line to a joke.

When you step back and really look at it, it's a sad day for Walton County, regardless of who wins. I don't think anything will change, it will only get worse.

We've really sunk to new political lows in 2016 and have been able to divide a population with so much potential.

Sounds like the National situation.

I like the signs. I collect them to post my targets on at the range after the elections. I also encourage all candidates to give me one for that same reason. That giant mobile sign would be a fantastic addition to my range!
I, however, don't like the littering of our beautiful county. And I'm sure there's nothing more than our visitors live more than seeing those signs right away after a long drive.

Visitors hate it. It looks like such C $ @ P and candidates are basically forced to put them up. Yet attendance at local forums is sad at best.

Most of this is in illegal areas and we should have an event (hey Better South Walton, listen up) and have a night time fund raiser for the cause by bringing in the most illegally placed signs. Then, someone can return them to the candidate and everyone wins! Yeah!

Sort of a Poker Run, but a Sign Recovery.