Why Should ANYONE Listen Uncritically to ANYTHING Ron Hankins Says?
29 May 2015 at 11:41:06 AM
Ron Hankins has a propensity for spouting off utter nonsense that is not based on fact and shows a contempt for the democratic process. I don't know if he's deliberately trying to be misleading or he just doesn't keep on what's actually 1 and current. Maybe he should ask his magic hat or try putting on a gimme cap instead.
Here's a question for YOU, dear reader. Do you believe that candidates for office ought to publicly say WHAT their positions are, ie, have an agenda for what they hope to accomplish? One of the main things I read ALL THE TIME on various internet sites is people griping about how A. the elected politician is not doing what he or she promised to do or B. the candidate won't tell what he or she stands for (I feel that way about Hillary Clinton, for example, I want as an informed voter to at least hear specifically what someone running for office purports to do). And yet Paul Harper is trashed by this ignoramous because he not only said WHAT he was going to run on, got ELECTED for running on it, but continued to try to represent the people who voted for HIM.
IF you believe that it's a GOOD THING for people running for office to espouse an opinion, and IF that candidate is LEGALLY ELECTED, do you think that person should be PUNISHED for being elected on the basis of a clear opinion? Ron Hankins does. Why? Because, of course, HE (in his own head shielded by his magic hat) believes he is the one that knows the best interest of the district. I have wondered before, why even have elections if god forbid someone with clear opinions that Ron Hankins doesn't agree with gets elected? Oh, that's right, if it was not a district, all that good ole tax money wouldn't be available. You can bet that tax is GOING TO GO UP. Ron Hankins is ALL for that. And speaking of best interests of district, Ron Hankins voted to IGNORE the 501a contract- how is ignoring contracts in the best interest of the district?
At the meeting last night, which my hub recorded with my camera, and I just finished watching, Ron Hankins, Karen Burroughs and Brett Nabors voted AGAINST paying for Paul Harper's insurance deductible, against the frivolous lawsuit that Darrell Best brought against him and which Ron Hankins is part of. Ron Hankins bloviated for awhile about why he wouldn't vote for this. Watch this video to see how silly this man is.
IF the person who has elected has been thwarted at every turn in his or her attempt to get something done ACCORDING to the platform run on, that person WILL NOT HAVE ACCOMPLISHED HIS OR HER AGENDA. Is that a BAD THING? No. Ron Hankins simply does not understand that if someone doesn't follow exactly what HE, Ron Hankins, says should happen, that doesn't mean the person isn't operating in the best interests of the district; meant Ron Hankins is not a dictator rather than another elected member of a board Also doesn't mean that that is 1 simply because Hankins thinks this is in his own little mind. Guess what, the JUDGE in the Best v Harper suit did not agree.
Judge Cooke, on Jan 20, 2015, said “I do not believe the state has met its burden to remove him from office. The most important thing we have in this country is the election of our citizens, whether we agree with what Mr Harper does or does not do, the voters voted and put him on the board”. -
I guess Ron Hankins has contempt for judges. I already know he has contempt for the Texas State Attorney General. Why in the world does Hankins think HE is the only one that counts? Why is there an elected board if everyone is expected to be Nodding Heads Doggies IN the Car Window, and the will of the people is to be IGNORED (Paul Harper got MORE VOTES than Ron Hankins, that ought to tell you something.)
Is the ONLY opinion that is okay to be heard at ANY elected government board meeting ONE opinion that happens to belong to the loudest, crabbiest voice? Ron Hankins certainly thinks so. He believes, in HIS OPINION, that he is correct about his positions. He's entitled to that opinion. But he does NOT believe in freedom of speech or that ANYONE ELSE is entitled to theirs.Ron Hankins is a ridiculous, small man.
On the vote taken last night about whether elected board members should expect to be covered in case of FRIVOLOUS lawsuits by insurance that a district pays for and for which board members expect to be covered. Ron Hankins does not believe in this. So if the district is sued by ANYONE ELSE, that means, what? That they can't expect to be covered? Will the insurance lapse? Who pays a judgment? THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR. Can you imagine ANYONE wanting to run for office if they know that frivolous lawsuits can be lodged against them, AND EVEN WHEN A JUDGE RULES AGAINST THE FRIVOLOUS AND PETTY, the defendant in office should continue to be punished for DARING TO HAVE AN OPINION AND BE ELECTED?
Ron Hankins, frankly, if he had ONE SHRED of integrity, would have recused himself from ANY vote involving insurance payments for frivolous lawsuits. Why? Because he decided to be PART of it. He put in an affadavit in January to try to prevent Paul Harper from attending a board meeting. If you read it, you'll see a great example of his Magic Hat, wishful thinking, where he believes he *knows* things. The judge didn't agree. So why in the world, since he decided to be PARTY to this lawsuit, should he even have a say in whether, since the insurance company believed it had wound down after the judge said that Andy Lucas had not proven his case, Paul should be allowed to have attorney fees paid for FRIVOLOUS SUIT??? He says he believes people should do what is right- guess he thinks that scolding finger he is pointing outward does NOT apply to him.
P.S. If you listen to the video from the meeting, you'll see that, while the crowd in general seems to have calmed down and has some respect (or they're in fear of the code of conduct, who knows), not so for the Peanut Gallery when Ron Hankins speaks. Sounds like Cathi Hankins continualy piping up, alone, although it might be someone else. Certainly Hankins didn't inspire the type of uncontrolled chaos he soliticted the last times he tried to incite the audience. Chip Harrison does NOT maintain order.But it's hilarious that there are STILL those that simply cannot control themselves.
P.P.S. Another item discussed at that meeting was about educating people so that they don't believe just anything that happens to come across on the internet. Ron Hankins wants this. So does Paul Harper. I do too. Here's the thing. ON MY site, Somervell County Salon, I seek to put video and audio with my opinion (just as all of the above is MY opinion, perhaps Mr Hankins would like to reach out and stop citizens from having opinions too) so you can see for yourself and form your OWN opinion. If you choose to believe Ron Hankins bloviations without watching the videos of what happened at the meeting, you're setting yourself up for your own ignorance.