- 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
1
Posted on 10/21/19 at 8:08 am to MrJimBeam
quote:Where are you seeing this?
Seems like Lauberge may have some interest in St George.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 8:08 am to sec13rowBBseat28
quote:
So why include them in something they obviously don't want to be apart of?
because.....RACIST!
You include Gardere....RACIST! You don't...RACIST!
Posted on 10/21/19 at 8:17 am to BlackAdam
quote:
Truthfully. That St. George left them outside of the borders in the second incorporation attempt because they showed opposition to the incorporation.
So your criticism here is that StG didn't include those that didn't want to be in StG anyway. How did this argument sound in your little brain before you typed it out? Your not original here, that stupid line has been trotted out a few times in the last few months.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 8:24 am to BlackAdam
Smart move. They were initially included but rejected St George as is their prerogative. Why force Gardere to be a part of a city they want no part of? It’s a win- win in every respect. Plus it gives really dishonest SJW Progressives an easy way to demagogue the racial issue, which makes them happy .
And for their part, St George proponents, being largely white, are completely used to having their motivations slurred on the basis of their race every single day, and no longer GAF what angry Democrats yell at them. Part of having good local government involves the process of going through the Progressive Slurring & Shaming Process. Small price to pay.
And for their part, St George proponents, being largely white, are completely used to having their motivations slurred on the basis of their race every single day, and no longer GAF what angry Democrats yell at them. Part of having good local government involves the process of going through the Progressive Slurring & Shaming Process. Small price to pay.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 8:28 am to BlackAdam
We’re St. George community organizers canvassing for signatures in the Gardere area?
Posted on 10/21/19 at 8:32 am to Clames
quote:
So your criticism here is that StG didn't include those that didn't want to be in StG anyway. How did this argument sound in your little brain before you typed it out? Your not original here, that stupid line has been trotted out a few times in the last few months.
Why are you so defensive about it? I said they didn't include them because they showed opposition. Coincidentally that is the same thing Drew Murrel said. I didn't give my opinion. I only said exactly what the spokesperson of the incorporation said.
Why are you so bothered by a fact?
Posted on 10/21/19 at 8:33 am to BlackAdam
He also gave a fact and you were bothered by it. “Interesting way to phrase it.” Why was that?
Posted on 10/21/19 at 8:35 am to Proximo
quote:
He also gave a fact and you were bothered by it. “Interesting way to phrase it.” Why was that?
Because what he said was a lie. Gardere did not have a choice as to be included or not in either incorporation. The lines were drawn by organizers.
The reasons for leaving that area out the second time are sound, so why lie about it?
Posted on 10/21/19 at 8:36 am to BlackAdam
Maybe because you went out of your way to parse his words by saying “ that’s an interesting way to say it” as is par for the course for anybody who wants to throw shade at St George supporters?
Posted on 10/21/19 at 8:37 am to BlackAdam
quote:This is a 100% bullshite statement. They were given the choice to sign the petition during the first attempt.
Gardere did not have a choice as to be included or not in either incorporation.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 8:40 am to BlackAdam
quote:
Because what he said was a lie. Gardere did not have a choice as to be included or not in either incorporation. The lines were drawn by organizers.
If 71 more folks from Gardere had signed the initial petition then they could have voted to be in SG years ago.
Fact
Posted on 10/21/19 at 8:45 am to BlackAdam
quote:
Gardere did not have a choice as to be included or not in either incorporation. The lines were drawn by organizers.
Well you know what, now they have a choice, and can petition to be annexed in if they want.
The ball is in their court.
I'd be willing to be that the St. George government, once it's established, would be open to annexing that area.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 8:46 am to BlackAdam
quote:
Because what he said was a lie. Gardere did not have a choice as to be included or not in either incorporation
they made their choice by opposing the incorporation
Posted on 10/21/19 at 8:56 am to BlackAdam
quote:
Because what he said was a lie. Gardere did not have a choice as to be included or not in either incorporation. The lines were drawn by organizers.
The reasons for leaving that area out the second time are sound, so why lie about it?
Can you even read? They were included in the first petition drive but their lack of signatures is the reason they were excluded the 2nd go round.
The sheer amount of people who were mad about this area being included in the 1st round yet even madder that they were not included in the 2nd round, is astonishing.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 9:01 am to Damone
quote:
We’re St. George community organizers canvassing for signatures in the Gardere area
And what did you find? Did you have any casualties?
Posted on 10/21/19 at 9:05 am to OysterPoBoy
quote:
And what did you find? Did you have any casualties?
We lost a few good men, but not nearly as many as were expected to be lost. Other than that, we had the usual muggings, a couple of carjackings, 3 of our members had they fomes stolen, but that's about it.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 9:26 am to LSUTigerFan247
quote:
The sheer amount of people who were mad about this area being included in the 1st round yet even madder that they were not included in the 2nd round, is astonishing.
Yes, two big opposition talking points were that SG organizers were greedy because the initial area to be incorporated included the Mall and the Casino, and that they were including large numbers of folks that didn’t want to be in SG.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 9:27 am to BlackAdam
quote:
Because what he said was a lie. Gardere did not have a choice as to be included or not in either incorporation. The lines were drawn by organizers.
The reasons for leaving that area out the second time are sound, so why lie about it?
please read and make an informed educated decision. For the first time I was actually a resident and homeowner in that area. I was on the fence but did not sign the petition. At the time there was great opposition from all in that area.
This time around I no longer have property in the area and moved out of state. Since then many of the homeowners no longer live in the homes and rent them out now. A lot has changed since then though. I greatly see the importance of an ISD and great community and schools when moved out of state. I have no dog in this fight but support the St. George effort. It may be the only hope left for Baton Rouge.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 9:28 am to LSUTigerFan247
quote:
The sheer amount of people who were mad about this area being included in the 1st round yet even madder that they were not included in the 2nd round, is astonishing.
Logical consistency is not a requirement to be in the opposition.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News