So Shreve is dedicating his dozen brain cells to getting refunds for campaign contributions for those with buyer’s remorse who donated to Bud Otis. While it is a shame that they didn’t recognize that he wasn’t going to be a partisan hack, it really isn’t a crisis. It’s a good thing. We recommend visiting the link up top to Billy Shreve’s public page so that you can tell him how little sense he is making right now. Or on any given day.

Particularly astonishing in light of Shreve’s “campaign for a refund” is to read in the paper today that Shrelauter’s BFFs at the hybrid tree-farm-wedding-venue are getting sued for a whole slew of stuff related to the fact that they took money for weddings and now can’t have the weddings because they simply refused to even apply for the necessary temporary permits. But nope, they still aren’t giving the deposit money back. Maybe our two most chivalrous and concerned county level representatives could stop telling illegal operating businesses to do whattheheckever they want, consequences be damned. How about telling these business owners to give back the money they owe these couples? Is this the utopia they envision when they “make doing business easier,” folks? Aren’t most of us more often on the customer end of a transaction, and expecting that we will not be taken advantage of with encouragement from our public officials? All Shrelauter cares about is playing childish games. Furthermore, at the last meeting, Tony Chmelik was more than happy to create a situation where Kirby could get online and spin that Jan was trying to get more money via Tony’s proposed amendment, and then accuse M.C. of playing partisan politics. We’ve been passing around a book amongst the Yokel writers. Based upon our studies, it sounds like we are dealing with some particular cases. We’ll let you decide.