Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 10/27/2004 11:10:31 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 11:23:37 PM EST
Nuke waste ? some more won't hurt that much and more money is a good thing.

Charter schools? while I like CS, gov involvement is a bad thing, the money always comes with strings attached that then pulls cable through and next thing you know you've lost the whole works.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 6:34:01 AM EST
I went with No on 297 and Yes on 55. I bought in to the arguement that the state would lose contracts with other states to take our other hazardous waste if we quit taking their nuke material. I voted for charter schools because kids are idiots now days and can use all the help they can get. It won't pass anyway though....
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 8:52:18 AM EST
i agree with whiskey. i voted the same.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:32:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 1:35:54 PM EST by R-32]
Damage is already done with the waste, so why push it off onto another clean area and screw it up..

CS, well that is a tough one for me, my children will be going to the Christian School, or Home School, I think I still need to think on that one, but im leaning twds yes...
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 3:11:22 PM EST
Just dump it in Lewis County.

Originally Posted By R-32:
Damage is already done with the waste, so why push it off onto another clean area and screw it up..
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:04:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Just dump it in Lewis County.

Originally Posted By R-32:
Damage is already done with the waste, so why push it off onto another clean area and screw it up..




I see 1GR getting ready to send you to hell..



Link Posted: 10/28/2004 5:03:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By lethalppl:
i agree with whiskey. i voted the same.



+1
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:29:52 AM EST
Why wouldn't we want to accept nuclear waste? I mean it's not like the tri-cities are good for anything else. Plus, the radiation probably helps to offset all the inbreeding down there.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:14:08 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 7:24:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By 2whiskeyP:
I went with No on 297 and Yes on 55. I bought in to the arguement that the state would lose contracts with other states to take our other hazardous waste if we quit taking their nuke material. I voted for charter schools because kids are idiots now days and can use all the help they can get. It won't pass anyway though....



Ditto here... 297 was about LAWSUITs more than about watse. I think the lawyers are trying to open up a new cash cow with this bullshit.

55 seems good to me. We would not be eligable BUT anything that promotes competition for the public schools could instill a desire for them to excel. The arguments I have heard against have seemed completely lame.

I voted last week.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 2:37:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 5:23:10 PM EST by Boom_Stick]
I rejected 55.
I agreed that the public money they spent (their funding) is excused from being accountable to taxpayers.

I also shot down 884. I'm sick of them screaming for money when they can work a little more to streamline existing public schools. At OHS they just spent a whole bunch of money for computer systems that people STILL haven't figured out.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 2:55:10 PM EST
Voted no on nuke waste because what they have there already is contained in leaky systems and a potential hazard to begin with, why add Californica waste...we get enough of that with all the move-ins already.

CS, voted no because the past several tax measures promised to apply the funds into schools and wound up in the general fund.

Railgun....

Link Posted: 11/1/2004 4:56:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By Railgun:
CS, voted no because the past several tax measures promised to apply the funds into schools and wound up in the general fund.



Same here. Also, Charter schools would be a step in the right direction, but it's not the best answer.

I'll hold out for a better offer, so to speak.
Top Top