- 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 10/18/22 at 3:38 pm to Bard
Has anyone bothered to ask DEQ?
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
Looks like WAFB, WBRZ, and the Advocate are now reporting on it.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Which part is the “half truth”?
half truth
It seems like a “full lie”.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:40 pm to lsu13lsu
quote:That still isn’t a “half truth” if the claim is that the EPA and DOJ forced them to sign NDAs.
The Mayor could have had employees working on it sign them to keep them quiet.
This post was edited on 10/18/22 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:40 pm to Scruffy
Even Chauna Banks, not exactly an opponent of Broome, has stated she will not vote on the stormwater fee and she is frustrated with the mayor's office.
Per Chauna, "I have not been able to determine or find that this administration is forthcoming, knowledgeable or transparent regarding what mandates they are supposedly getting from these federal agencies."
So, SFP, are you beginning to see the picture?
Per Chauna, "I have not been able to determine or find that this administration is forthcoming, knowledgeable or transparent regarding what mandates they are supposedly getting from these federal agencies."
So, SFP, are you beginning to see the picture?
This post was edited on 10/18/22 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:40 pm to Scruffy
The wording seems to be pretty careful.
Party A has signed an NDA....but it doesn't specifically say with whom.
The reason why dumbass saying I was arguing Broome was "innocent" with one of my options was hilarious, because her admin orchestrating unnecessary NDAs (and not with fedgov) would be so much worse than signing NDAs forced on them by fedgov.
Party A has signed an NDA....but it doesn't specifically say with whom.
The reason why dumbass saying I was arguing Broome was "innocent" with one of my options was hilarious, because her admin orchestrating unnecessary NDAs (and not with fedgov) would be so much worse than signing NDAs forced on them by fedgov.
This post was edited on 10/18/22 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
dumbass
It’s all about the friends we make along the way
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I think it is more your statement of “half truth”, which implies there is an element of truth there.
The reason why dumbass saying I was arguing Broome was "innocent" with one of my options is that her admin orchestrating unnecessary NDAs (and not with fedgov) would be so much worse than signing NDAs forced on them by fedgov.
If the claim is that they were forced to by the EPA and DOJ, then it isn’t a half truth at all.
It is simply a lie.
That doesn’t even address the reported timetable that also appears to be a lie.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:42 pm to lsuguy84
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:43 pm to BugAC
I'm not crawfishing.
You're too blinded (or stupid) to understand what was being said and you just had some emotional outbursts.
You're too blinded (or stupid) to understand what was being said and you just had some emotional outbursts.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
We’re talking about your gf, not your wife
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm not crawfishing.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:45 pm to Scruffy
quote:
I think it is more your statement of “half truth”, which implies there is an element of truth there.
The existence of the NDA makes is somewhat truthful.
quote:
If the claim is that they were forced to by the EPA and DOJ, then it isn’t a half truth at all.
But this was merely implied and not stated. There is a LOT of careful wording used in those articles. They never specifically state the other party of the (alleged) NDAs signed by members of the admin.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:45 pm to BugAC
Explain the crawfish using my own words used in this thread
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:46 pm to BugAC
quote:
No non-disclosure agreement is in place or required by the EPA or the Department of Justice regarding the storm water fee in Baton Rouge.”
That no good for nothing, rotten, lying, stealing, worthless bitch.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The existence of the NDA makes is somewhat truthful.
There is no NDA, genius.
quote:
They never specifically state the other party of the (alleged) NDAs signed by members of the admin.
And as i stated earlier, per Haldane's morning show with Dwight Hudson, Hudson went on to mention they were essentially being stonewalled by the broome administration and were not given details on the desent decree due to an NDA. This interview was prior to today. Yet here you are, doing your best to carry Broome's water.
This post was edited on 10/18/22 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 10/18/22 at 3:48 pm to whoa
quote:
In the form of a stormwater fee?
Yes, in the form of a stormwater fee that will do nothing to address stormwater problems, but will definitely provide a new building, salary, and benefits to more useless City-Parish employees.
Page 6 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News