- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Anyone Get to Observe One of the St. George Petition Signings?
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:35 am to LSURussian
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:35 am to LSURussian
quote:
They are threatening to take their ball and go home if the big kids won't let them play quarterback.
And you are perfectly fine with letting the EPRP School System continue to be the failure that it is. SG is at least attempting to fix the problem locally and are not content with the status quo that BR proper seems to be, and not calling a grading from a D to a C in 5 years a "huge success".
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 10:35 am
1
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:35 am to RealityTiger
quote:He was that way when he was campaigning for the council. He attacked Smokie Bourgeois like Smokie is the anti-Christ.
He'd try to rally people to join his side, where we'd all be telling him, "Jesus man just fricking relax it's not that serious". He'd blow his fuse pretty easily too.
I kept waiting for Delgado to accuse Smokie of masterminding the 9/11 attacks.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:36 am to LSURussian
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:38 am to Pennymoney
quote:
Just when BR is really on an upswing these St. George secessionist fools will turn Baton Rouge into a total shite hole in a few years and what happens to anything that comes near a black hole?
So the fact that an unincorporated area wants to take their tax dollars and manage their own city, will equal BR turning into a wasteland is St. George's fault? Maybe, the BR people should try to fix their situation, the way SG is trying to do. Through the community, and not rely on SG money to prop them up. Or maybe BR should work with the SG area rather than against the SG area?
It's funny because people like Russian are saying that SG area can not manage a city because it doesn't contribute enough money, yet it is enough money to turn BR into a wasteland if they leave? Contradictions abound.
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 10:41 am
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:39 am to LSURussian
LSURussian said:
And prior to 1718 New Orleans was just a collection of building and houses on the bank of the Mississippi River.
All cities were once newly created. So what if Banker and Zachary have been incorporated for over 100 years.
One hundred years from now Saint George would have been a city for almost 100 years. BFD. Soon Saint George will be a NEW city.
quote:
Baker and Zachary have been incorporated for almost 100 years. Central, while not incorporated, has been "Central" for many decades. You could have asked anyone who lived there 25 years ago where they lived and they would have said, "Central" and you would have known what they meant.
And prior to 1718 New Orleans was just a collection of building and houses on the bank of the Mississippi River.
All cities were once newly created. So what if Banker and Zachary have been incorporated for over 100 years.
One hundred years from now Saint George would have been a city for almost 100 years. BFD. Soon Saint George will be a NEW city.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:40 am to BugAC
quote:
It's funny because people like Russian are saying that SG area can not manage a city because it doesn't contribute enough money, yet it is enough money to turn BR into a wasteland? Contradictions abound.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:41 am to LSURussian
quote:
Ask employees who live outside of the city
Employees of what employer?
I'm sure you well know that the residency proposal would have not allowed residents of Baker, Central, Zachary or the potential SG to work for the city/parish government, even though they are all residents, voters and taxpayers of the parish. Even Delgado admitted that was ridiculous.
BR Business Report
quote:
Re-elected yesterday, except for one whose vote was deferred until the next meeting.
On a razor-thin vote after a display of shameless political grandstanding. What about BR police and fire employees opposing SG? Should they be removed for bringing politics into their jobs?
How much longer before the balance of power in city/parish council shifts to the favor of those who support the residency rule and political retaliation?
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:46 am to BeerMoney
I observed a petition signing when I went out of my way to find the signing and sign the petition. St. George all the way.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:49 am to BugAC
quote:Oh, good, you took the bait. I was hoping you would be the one to do it. Once again you've proven you're just ignorant enough to not know what the f*ck you're talking about.
I think it's pretty obvious that he's talking about that idiot council member that wanted to bring up to a vote, that only those people that live inside BR proper can work for the city of BR. You know this. Quit being stupid.
The idea never even made it to the agenda when it was first brought up, much less discussed or voted on. Holden and every other city leader criticized the idea. When it was brought up a second time, it was tabled. There was never a chance it was going to pass.
Even so, the proposal as described in the paper exempted anyone who currently works for the city. No city employee's job would have been in jeopardy. It only would have applied to future applicants.
Plus, it didn't, as you claim it did, apply to just people who live in the city limits of Baton Rouge. Anyone who lives anywhere in EBR but not in another city could still be hired by the city.
And, many local governments already have such policies, such as the city of New Orleans and Livingston Parish. I don't see you accusing them of threatening people, hypocrite.
So, right back at you, quit being stupid.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:51 am to udtiger
quote:
How about we just fix the problems with our city instead of running away from them...
When people ask this question of the St. George supporters, then St. George supporters should just respond this way: Okay, sure. Let's talk about fixing the problems with "our city," which we are currently not even a part of. In exchange for not running away, what will you, city of Baton Rouge, do to help the St. George area?
Will you help us form our own school district or significantly improve the schools that are in this area? When we say significantly improve, we mean more than just a school where our kids likely won't get stabbed.
Will you take steps to actively pursue and eliminate corruption, redundancy, inefficiency and criminal activity in city/parish government?
Will you stop viewing and using the St. George area as a cash cow for pet projects downtown?
Will EBR law enforcement spend less time shaking us down for inspection sticker violations and rolling stops at intersections and more time curtailing the spread of narcotics and theft in the St. George area?
See... here's the problem with the question, "How about we just fix the problems with our city instead of running away from them?"
Everyone expects St. George to step up and help Baton Rouge fix Baton Rouge's problems. They never think about Baton Rouge stepping up to fix the problems that are fueling the St. George incorporation movement.
The people in St. George have legitimate, real concerns about issues that affect them every day... and they are so tired of seeing nothing done, that they want to go their own way. Instead of criticizing them for doing so, how about acknowledging that these problems need to be addressed?
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 10:54 am
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:54 am to BugAC
quote:Who has called that small improvement a 'huge success'?
and not calling a grading from a D to a C in 5 years a "huge success".
I have not seen or heard anyone call it anything but what it is, the first positive indication that the school system might be on the right track after almost 50 years of being run by the federal courts.
Exaggerate much?
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:57 am to LSURussian
quote:
he idea never even made it to the agenda when it was first brought up,
I never said that dipshit. I'm pointing out the obvious circumstance hawkeye was talking about, but you were feigning ignorance so you could "get" someone. Quit being a douchebag. I know damn well it never went to a vote and even Delgado thought it was stupid. It was one of the women council members that brought it up. And i knew exactly what you were doing, because you've brought it up in the PT board numerous times. So again, go read my post a-hole. Tell me where i said, what you claimed i said. I was simply pointing out what circumstance you knew hawkeye was talking about, but because you are such a fricking woman over this issue, you revert to feigning ignorance to "prove a point". You've only proved your stupidity, once again, in yet another SG thread. And you claimed you weren't obsessive....
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:58 am to LSURussian
So, SG is defeated with no opportunity for the issue coming back.
What, in your opinion, happens in the next 2-3 years? School system improves? Retribution for SG attempting to break away? Expedited incorporation of SG? Maintain the current status quo?
What, in your opinion, happens in the next 2-3 years? School system improves? Retribution for SG attempting to break away? Expedited incorporation of SG? Maintain the current status quo?
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:58 am to LSURussian
quote:
The idea never even made it to the agenda when it was first brought up, much less discussed or voted on. Holden and every other city leader criticized the idea. When it was brought up a second time, it was tabled. There was never a chance it was going to pass.
So, the fact that 5 out of 12 city/parish council members worked together to propose an ordinance that would prevent certain citizens of the city/parish from being eligible for jobs within that city/parish should not be of "concern" to residents? So, any political effort, no matter how blatantly discriminatory or ridiculous, that does not succeed should be considered a non-issue?
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:59 am to LSURussian
quote:
Who has called that small improvement a 'huge success'?
I have not seen or heard anyone call it anything but what it is, the first positive indication that the school system might be on the right track after almost 50 years of being run by the federal courts.
Exaggerate much?
Really? You also have suggested that school crowding isn't a problem, bussing isn't an issue, and that the SG citizens are racist.
And yes, your responses on the PT board make it sound like you believe that going from a D to C, is an "all-clear" and that the SG citizens are just reactionary idiots with not valid claims.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 11:01 am to BugAC
quote:Liar. I've never said that. Stop lying.
people like Russian are saying that SG area can not manage a city because it doesn't contribute enough money
Posted on 2/27/14 at 11:02 am to BeerMoney
I don't think they will have any trouble getting the sigs they need.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 11:05 am to LSURussian
quote:
Liar. I've never said that. Stop lying.
Did you or did you not state that SG can not form it's own city without raising taxes "dramatically"? Did you or did you not state that the SG people do not contribute a significant portion of taxes to the EBR coffers?
If BR will crumble if SG leaves, then that may be an indication that SG has sufficient funds to run it's own city. We don't know for sure because EBR does not track money coming from the SG area. I'm just asking you to stop claiming you KNOW for fact that SG can't happen without tax increases. You don't know. I don't know. That's why i want more information city structure, and i keep an open mind. You are entrenched on one side and it's a big negative.
Hell, yesterday you claimed that the Green Light Program was majority within SG, and that it was paid for by BR money.
You claimed a few months ago, that SG holding a fundraiser at Louisiana Lagniappe and selling out of their 250 tickets was a failure.
And prior to that, you claimed the real motiviation behind SG was racism.
So excuse us if your opinions on the matter are taken with a grain of salt.
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 11:07 am
Posted on 2/27/14 at 11:05 am to SpqrTiger
quote:
Will you stop viewing and using the St. George area as a cash cow for pet projects downtown?
This is my primary reason for signing the petition. I wanted smaller, even more localized government that is less likely to spend my tax dollars on something I never use and do not want or care about. I go downtown about once a year. When I saw our city council voted to spend taxpayers dollars to build a pavilion, I nearly had an aneurysm. Just give me back my tax dollars instead of spending money on that and let a private business build a pavilion if they want to. Same goes for BREC and any other project in Baton Rouge where the government is spending money outside of expanding road infrastructure, police force, fire department, and a very small group of other government employees. If private citizens want it, they will pay for it themselves rather than make every single person pay for it via taxes.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 11:05 am to BugAC
quote:At least I feign ignorance. You don't have to feign it.
, but you were feigning ignorance
And stop lying about what I've posted.
Page 4 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News